ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked-

Afghanistan

Ian Murray: What assessment he has made of the capacity of the Afghan national security forces to assume responsibility for the security of Afghanistan by 2015; and if he will make a statement.

Liam Fox: Assessments of the Afghan national security forces are regularly carried out by the NATO training mission in Afghanistan, of which UK forces form an important part. There are currently around 144,000 Afghan national army personnel and around 116,000 Afghan national police. The October 2010 targets were exceeded two months ahead of schedule and we assess that the growth in both capacity and capability of the Afghan forces is on track to meet the target of transferring lead responsibility for security to the Afghans by the end of 2014.

Ian Murray: When in Afghanistan, the Prime Minister said he was confident that troops could begin to return home in 2011, but the Chief of the Defence Staff has said that we will not "cut and run", and the Defence Secretary has said that we will be there for as long as it takes. That causes confusion and could make the situation in Afghanistan worse, and it causes a great deal of uncertainty for both our troops and their families. Will the Secretary of State categorically state whether UK troops will begin to depart from Afghanistan in 2011?

Liam Fox: The Prime Minister made it clear on his visit to Afghanistan, as the Chief of the Defence Staff and I have done, that if conditions allow, we may be able to see a reduction in 2011 of some UK forces. We may also decide to use UK forces in a different way, particular in more of a training mission, but that will depend on what happens on the ground next year.

Peter Tapsell: May I ask my right hon. Friend, the sixth successive Defence Minister to whom I have pointed out the utter folly of our current intervention in Afghanistan-four of the quintet before him have wisely fled the House, and the first has just been banned from the Tea Room for five years-to whom he thinks the Afghan security force, which has been recruited from various tribes who have been bitterly hostile to each other for centuries, will owe their allegiance? Alternatively, does he expect a military dictator to emerge from their ranks to impose order?

Liam Fox: I am well aware of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in Afghanistan and his long-standing difference of opinion with the mainstream. It is not just the UK that believes that the mission is essential. A coalition of some 48 countries in Afghanistan believes, and understands correctly, that we need both to degrade the threat in Afghanistan and to increase the capability of the Afghan Government to provide security if we are to see regional, and indeed global, stability.

Bob Ainsworth: The progress being made by the Afghan security forces is good news, but when I asked the Prime Minister why he decided to announce a deadline so far out from 2015, he replied that one reason was to get away from the pressure for constant, short-term deadlines. He then went to Afghanistan and announced that our troops may well start coming home by 2011. Why is he doing that? What is the purpose of those constant public announcements on the end of the combat mission and the beginning of troops returning home? No one in the House denies that they want to see the troops come home quickly, but everybody is somewhat worried about those public pronouncements.

Liam Fox: There was indeed no announcement of any short-term milestone on the way to 2015. In answer to the question of whether British troops might be able to come home in 2011 and reduce their number, the Prime Minister said that that was dependent on conditions on the ground, which is entirely consistent with the Government's position in the run-up to 2015.

James Gray: The numbers of Afghan forces-some 250,000 all told-are encouraging. That is a major step in the right direction, but does the Secretary of State agree that their capabilities and abilities matter more than just the numbers? What assessment has he made of the development-rapid or otherwise-of those capabilities?

Liam Fox: The capabilities speak for themselves. There have been enormous leaps in what the Afghan forces can do. The Afghan national army has conducted itself honourably and with great credit in terms of its technical ability, not least in Kandahar, and the Afghan national police are now moving ahead, for two reasons. First, the police were given equal pay status with the ANA, and secondly, along with that, literacy training led to a big increase in the quality of those joining. That is a major step forward from where we were in recent years.

Jim Murphy: No one doubts the bravery of many of those joining the Afghan security forces-it is beyond doubt-but the Secretary of State will be aware that there are still worries about the quality of current training, the levels of desertion from the Afghan forces, and the very few cases in which some in the Afghan forces have turned their weapons on those in the international security assistance force. This is a crucial issue, because success in Afghanistan depends on it, so will he support increased international effort to improve the training and resilience of Afghan forces on the ground?

Liam Fox: Indeed, I will. The right hon. Gentleman makes a crucial point. The international community, if it wants to be truly successful, must recognise that this is about not just the numbers but the capability. Those who intend to transition away from a combat role would do well therefore to put the resources into increased training in Afghanistan to ensure that what the international community sets out to do is achieved.

Former Service Personnel (Support Services)

David Davies: What steps he is taking to ensure adequate care provision for former service personnel.

Andrew Robathan: The Government are committed to ensuring that all our former service personnel receive the support they require from across the whole of government. We also remain committed to rebuilding the military covenant.
	My officials are in regular discussion with the Department of Health, the Ministry of Justice, the Department for Communities and Local Government and the Department for Work and Pensions and others to ensure that former servicemen and women get the services they deserve.

David Davies: Has the Minister considered lobbying the Government to change the law so that ex-service personnel can be discriminated in favour of in job interviews? Does he agree that were we to add ex-service personnel to the list of people in our society who can be discriminated in favour of, it would be a true example of positive discrimination?

Andrew Robathan: I would say to all potential employers that most ex-service personnel bring with them a resilience and hard-work ethos that they may not find in every civilian. I would also say that we have very good resettlement packages for people going out into the civilian world, and we will certainly lobby employers to take disabled and other ex-service personnel on to their books. However, positive discrimination is illegal, and I do not think we are aiming to change the statutes. It is also unlawful to discriminate against disabled people.

Gemma Doyle: The Minister has said in recent letters to Members that the Government have no plans to introduce a veterans card scheme, which many believe would assist in identifying veterans to ensure that they get the care they deserve. However, the report on the military covenant commissioned by the Government and published last week recommends implementing such a scheme. Will he now reconsider his view on this matter?

Andrew Robathan: There is no point in commissioning a report without looking at it, and we are doing so closely-as the hon. Lady will know, we are already implementing one or two of its recommendations. The veterans card is a difficult one, because, as Labour Members in the last Administration will know, it is difficult to identify who has been in the armed forces over a period of perhaps 60 years, and to ensure that it is feasible. It is also difficult to identify what exactly would be the point of it. We should remember, for instance, that there is already a discount service for those people.

Angus Robertson: What about the veterans badge?

Andrew Robathan: The veterans badge does not bring with it any privileges.

Harrier Fleet

Angie Bray: What timetable he has set for the decommissioning of Harrier jets.

Nick Harvey: The strategic defence and security review published on 19 October 2010 stated that the Harrier fleet would be withdrawn from service in 2011. We have brought this date forward to coincide with the cessation of flying. The Harrier fleet will now be retired from service with the Royal Navy and Royal Air Force on 15 December 2010.

Angie Bray: I was lucky enough to sit in the cockpit of a Harrier jet when I was working for the British Forces Broadcasting Service in Gibraltar some years ago. The jets are fantastic pieces of kit. Does the Minister agree that the Harrier jets and their pilots have performed a great service for this country? Will he also update us on the training programme for the joint strike fighter, which is the replacement?

Nick Harvey: It is a pleasure to echo the hon. Lady's words in paying tribute to all who have served with the Harrier, in both the Royal Navy and the Royal Air Force, and in complimenting the Harrier itself, which, in its day, was a much-admired and, indeed, groundbreaking piece of engineering.  [ Interruption. ] I am sorry; I had forgotten the hon. Lady's question. Training for the joint strike fighter is already under way. Indeed, it will continue throughout the next few years, increasing its momentum considerably as we get into the second half of the coming decade, because of the necessity to bring the JSF into service in 2019. The intense training period will run for several years ahead of that, but the training itself has already begun.

Michael Dugher: The Minister for the Armed Forces said in an interview on 9 November that the Government would save more money by scrapping the Harrier than by scrapping the Tornado, yet the Minister responsible for defence equipment, the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, the hon. Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), said in a subsequent written answer that the cost of supporting the Harrier to 2018 would have been £0.7 billion, whereas the cost of the Tornado over the next 10 years would be £3.1 billion. However, Lord Astor put the figure at £4.8 billion. Does that not show that there is not only a capability gap, in the words of the Secretary of State, but a credibility gap, too?

Nick Harvey: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman is comparing like with like in those figures, but in any case, the military grounds for the choice were straightforward. It would not have been possible for the Harrier to go back into service in Afghanistan because of the run-down of the Harrier fleet under the previous Administration. Furthermore, the Tornado has a considerably greater range of capabilities, in terms of its range and performance, weapons payload and reconnaissance capabilities. The decision was taken on the basis of military advice.

RAF Bicester

Tony Baldry: What plans he has for the disposal of RAF Bicester.

Nick Harvey: RAF Bicester has been in disposal for some time, and it would not make practical or economic sense to withdraw it from that process now. Because the wider estate rationalisation work that is under way is a complex piece of work that will take some time to complete, where it is sensible to do so, we will allow normal disposal business to continue.

Tony Baldry: Can my hon. Friend explain to the chief executive of Defence Estates that RAF Bicester has absolutely no commercial value? It is a combination of a number of historic listed buildings, a runway surrounded by ammunition dumps that have the same statutory listing as Stonehenge and a grass airfield riven by Crichel Down disputes. Defence Estates has been trying to market RAF Bicester for several years now, yet absolutely no one has shown any interest in it because it has no commercial value. In the meantime, all that happens is that those wonderful listed buildings rot. That is a dereliction of duty, so can my hon. Friend get a grip with the chief executive of Defence Estates, so that RAF Bicester can be transferred to those in Bomber Command Heritage and others who would like to put it to good, heritage use?

Nick Harvey: I detect that my hon. Friend has a greater familiarity with the history than I do; suffice to say that whatever the history, it is now understood by Defence Estates. It has now been concluded that the site can be disposed of, and the accounts and views of former owners, among others, are being considered. When disposing of such defence assets, it is essential that competence and experience in dealing with historic buildings be taken into account. Any idea that the site had any significant commercial value has, I think, passed.

Mr Speaker: It is always a pleasure to listen to the hon. Member for Banbury (Tony Baldry), but may I gently say that we must now make a bit of progress?

International Security Assistance Force

Peter Bone: What proportion of the NATO international security assistance force is provided by the UK.

Liam Fox: There are currently 48 troop-contributing nations and more than 130,000 troops in the international security assistance force. The UK is the second largest troop contributor after the United States, contributing around 7.5% of the total force. This figure is also double the size of the third largest contribution, made by Germany.

Peter Bone: At this time I would like to pay tribute to our brave men and women who are serving in Afghanistan, especially as Christmas approaches. Is the Secretary of State surprised that UK troops in Afghanistan account for 43% of the troops contributed by European Union countries? Is he satisfied that our colleagues are doing enough?

Liam Fox: No, I am not satisfied, and therefore the Government will constantly be urging our other NATO partners to do more. However, it is worth saying that some of the smaller nations contribute disproportionately. In particular, given the difficulties that we face in Helmand, I am sure that the House would like to pay tribute to our Danish and Estonian colleagues, who have done such a wonderful job. In general terms, the message for the rest of NATO is that we all need to act together-and in together and out together.

Gisela Stuart: Has the Secretary of State made any assessment of what he thinks the UK force representation in Afghanistan will be post-2015?

Liam Fox: That is necessarily dependent on the security position in Afghanistan, especially as regards the quality-discussed in an earlier question-of the Afghan security forces, but I think it would be reasonable to expect the UK to be in Afghanistan in a training and support role for some time after 2015 to ensure that the legacy we hand over to the Afghan Government is maintained because, in the longer term, that regional stability is important for our safety here in the UK.

New Aircraft Carriers

Catherine McKinnell: What estimate he has made of the likely effect on the economy of his decision to build two aircraft carriers.

Peter Luff: The construction of the two Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers is expected to create or sustain around 7,000 to 8,000 jobs in the tier 1 shipyards of Appledore, Govan, Portsmouth and Rosyth, with a further 2,000 to 3,000 jobs in the wider supply chain. Equipment subcontracts to the value of some £1.3 billion have been placed to date, boosting local economies across the UK. The strategic defence and security review confirmed that both carriers will be built, and we expect that construction work on the programme will continue until late in this decade.

Catherine McKinnell: I thank the Minister for that encouraging answer. He may be aware that I have introduced the Apprenticeships and Skills (Public Procurement Contracts) Bill to encourage better use of the public procurement system to increase the number of apprenticeships available. What steps is the Minister taking to ensure that defence procurement increases the number of apprenticeships available, helping to build on skills bases in areas like the north-east, which has a proud history of manufacturing in this sector?

Peter Luff: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her initiative, and I can say that defence contractors up and down the country are committed to apprenticeships-and I pay tribute to them for that. It is very important that we maintain the skills base of our defence manufacturing industries, and they will be invited to contribute to the consultation that we are launching shortly on our new defence equipment policy.

Armed Forces Recruitment (Young People)

Nicholas Dakin: If he will take steps to implement the recommendations of parliamentary Committees in the last Parliament and the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child to end the recruitment of under-18s into the armed forces.

Andrew Robathan: The United Kingdom ratified the optional protocol on children in armed conflict in June 2003. The minimum age at which individuals may join the armed forces remains at 16 years, which broadly reflects the minimum statutory school leaving age. There are no plans to change this.

Nicholas Dakin: Some 28% of recruits into the armed forces were aged under 18 in 2008-09. Recruitment to the armed forces carries significant emotional and physical risks to well-being for young people. What steps are the Government taking to mitigate those risks?

Andrew Robathan: I recently took a passing-out parade at Bassingbourn, and I was struck by how happy all the young recruits under training appeared to be. We take our duty of care very seriously. It is a tough environment, but the recruits are well looked after, and most of the young people I met were desperate to join their units. We do not allow people under 18 to go operational theatre as a matter of policy.

New Aircraft Carriers

David Mowat: What assessment he has made of the value-for-money of the contract to build two new aircraft carriers for the Royal Navy.

Peter Luff: The strategic defence and security review concluded that a carrier strike capability was needed for the future. The most cost-effective way of delivering that capability from around 2020 is to continue building both the Queen Elizabeth class aircraft carriers, fitting the operational carrier with catapults and arrestor gear to enable the use of the more capable carrier variant of the joint strike fighter.

David Mowat: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that it cannot have been right on the eve of a general election, weeks before we reached the certainty of the strategic defence review, for a large UK supplier to enter into a contract with the Government? It was very difficult to break, so it effectively prejudged the result of the defence review. Is the Minister happy that BAE Systems acted in good faith in this matter?

Peter Luff: Cancellation costs are a very complex area. The contract for the aircraft carriers was related to the programme of work, agreed by the previous Government under the so-called terms of business agreement, to sustain the ability to design and integrate complex warships in the UK. Over the next few years, the QE class is providing that work load, with a Type 26 global combat ship taking over later in the decade. If we were to cancel the contracts for the QE class under TOBA we would need to provide replacement work, which would come at a cost, compounding the inevitable costs of cancelling the QE class ships, one of which is already well under construction. This brings us to the position so clearly outlined by the Prime Minister in the SDSR announcement. I would not point the finger of blame so much at BAE Systems as at my predecessor, who acquiesced in the delay of the carrier contract, which led to £767 million of increased costs in the last financial year alone, and a total of £1.56 billion over the life of the programme, making his peerage just about the most expensive in British political history.

Mr Speaker: May we have shorter answers from now on, please, and not long statements?

Thomas Docherty: As the Minister knows, the best way of obtaining value for money for the "cats and traps" is to fit them during the construction of both Queen Elizabeth and Prince of Wales. Can he update us on the progress made by his civil servants in discussing the issue with Babcock, and will he also tell us when he will report to the House on the final decision?

Peter Luff: The hon. Gentleman has a habit of asking me questions that I cannot answer. No decisions have been made yet, although they are currently being made. However, I can reassure him that we are considering carefully which system of "cats and traps" should be fitted to the carriers. Once again, he has made a point very well on behalf of his constituents.

David Crausby: Two new aircraft carriers fitted with joint strike fighters will put Britain's naval strike force in the premier league, but how can the Minister justify the absolute necessity in the longer term if he is prepared to accept no aircraft cover in the shorter term?

Peter Luff: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman has even asked that question. It is clear that we can accept the capability gap now to ensure that we have a truly capable carrier in the future-and it will be a truly capable carrier thanks to the decision to change the carrier variant, which will significantly enhance the power and projection of the vessel.

Defence Exports

Andrea Leadsom: What recent steps he has taken to increase the level of defence exports.

Andrew Stephenson: What recent steps he has taken to increase the level of defence exports.

Gerald Howarth: The strategic defence and security review set out our clear intention to increase defence exports as part of our enhanced defence diplomacy initiative. The principal purpose of such exports is to enhance our partnerships with allies, share UK ethos and doctrine, and generally promote the UK's influence. They provide the additional benefit of helping to drive down the cost of equipment for Britain's armed forces.
	Ministers across Departments are already actively promoting the policy, led by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. Officials in the Ministry of Defence and the Defence and Security Organisation, which is part of UK Trade & Investment, are giving invaluable support to Ministers and industry.

Andrea Leadsom: Is my hon. Friend aware of the enormous difficulties experienced by businesses such as Enterprise Control Systems in my constituency in securing export licences for the servicing and maintaining of equipment that they have sold abroad? Enterprise Control Systems makes world-class radio frequency inhibitors, but it is losing business because of the difficulty of obtaining credit licences.

Gerald Howarth: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing my attention to the difficulties faced by the company in her constituency. I can tell her that she is not alone: other companies throughout the country are experiencing the same difficulties. It is very important for us to ensure that licences are dealt with promptly by the Ministry of Defence and its agencies.
	Along with the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Worcestershire (Peter Luff), who is responsible for defence equipment, support and technology, I will look into the specific points that my hon. Friend has raised. It would be helpful if she wrote to me.

Andrew Stephenson: Rolls-Royce, which is the largest employer in my constituency, plans to build a £100 million extension to its Barnoldswick site and to take on 100 extra workers if it wins the contract for manufacturing engine fan blades for the new F35 joint strike fighter. Is my hon. Friend able to update us on what the Government are doing to help Rolls-Royce to secure the contract?

Gerald Howarth: I am acutely aware of the contribution that Barnoldswick in my hon. Friend's constituency makes to Rolls-Royce, which is surely one of the extraordinary jewels in the United Kingdom's engineering crown. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has written to Congressmen in both Houses on the Hill to emphasise our support for the F136 engine, and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has had meetings with the head of Air Force Acquisition, Lockheed Martin and others. I assure my hon. Friend that this Administration are doing everything that he would expect of them to promote a great British product to the United States.

Chris Bryant: Of course we all want to see a successful defence industry exporting as much as possible abroad, but must there not be a bottom line, namely that we do not sell to corrupt countries or to countries that will use what they buy from us to oppress their own people? In that context, is it not important for us to ensure that exports of small arms-which often keep inflamed the battles and civil wars in Africa-are brought to an end?

Gerald Howarth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to accept that we have one of the toughest export licensing controls for military equipment in the world. I yield to no one in praising the efforts of both the present Government and the last Conservative Government to ensure that, as far as possible, equipment has gone to the right people and not to those who would misuse it. We are, of course, governed by the law as well.
	I entirely take the hon. Gentleman's point about small arms, but unfortunately the world is awash with small arms, many of which do not come from the United Kingdom.

Russell Brown: Even during these current difficult economic times, the UK's defence export sector requires ongoing research and technology investment, but if we are to increase levels of exports in the defence sector, how does that square with the Secretary of State's view, admittedly when in opposition, that US-UK interoperability is the key and he would intend to follow a much more pro-American profile in procurement?

Gerald Howarth: Of course having a viable and successful defence industrial base in this country is very important; there is nothing to be interoperable with otherwise. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we place a high premium on interoperability, partly because we think it will help to drive down costs if our equipment is interoperable with that of other countries. The United States is, of course, our principal ally in these matters, and is likely to continue to be-provided, of course, that they are helpful to us when we need their help in supporting our industry.

Departmental Reform

Michael Ellis: What recent progress has been made on reform of the structure of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

Liam Fox: So far, the defence reform unit under Lord Levene has considered the key activities defence needs to undertake: an analysis of our current structure; how a number of other countries manage aspects of defence; and the benefits, disadvantages and robustness of a range of different operating models. It is currently considering proposals on how better to manage defence infrastructure and to deliver corporate services across defence. It is also examining the relationship between the head office, the rest of the Department and the armed forces.

Michael Ellis: I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for his response and congratulate him on the progress made. Can he assure us that the much-needed restructuring of the Ministry of Defence will not impact on the operation in Afghanistan or the provision of services to any of Her Majesty's armed forces?

Liam Fox: As I have said, defence reform is, effectively, a root-and-branch reform of the entire Department including, essentially, everything other than the front-line capabilities that were covered in the SDSR. It will have no impact on what is happening in Afghanistan, which will remain the prime effort of the MOD.

Jeffrey M Donaldson: In the context of reform, when does the Department intend to implement the recommendation in the report of the Secretary of State's party colleague, the hon. Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison), envisaging the establishment of a veterans information service?

Liam Fox: That is part of our ongoing programme. Between now and next summer, we hope to unveil a number of measures relating to that and similar aspects of how the MOD and the armed forces interact.

James Arbuthnot: Will the reform of defence acquisition be included in the work of the DRU, and when will the DRU be likely to report?

Liam Fox: Yes, acquisition will be part of what the DRU does; my right hon. Friend makes an important point. There will also be an announcement-I hope in the very near future-about a new chief of defence matériel, who will be important in that process. I hope the report on the acquisition reform will be available before the end of July 2011.

Kevan Jones: The SDSR projected savings from the redundancies of 25,000 civilian civil servants in the MOD. In answers to parliamentary questions, the Secretary of State has previously stated that the cost of redundancy packages are yet unknown. Will he today share with the House the cost of making 25,000 civil servants redundant, or is this just another area of the SDSR where announcements are being made before the work has been done?

Liam Fox: Given the financial position the Government inherited, it was necessary to make major reductions in costs, not least in personnel. How those costs ultimately are manifested is dependent upon whether we require compulsory redundancies, how many are voluntary redundancies and how many are early retirements. These matters are subject to discussions with the civil service at the current time.

Major Equipment Procurement Programmes

Claire Perry: What arrangements are in place to monitor the progress of his Department's major equipment procurement programmes.

Mark Lancaster: What arrangements are in place to monitor the progress of his Department's major equipment procurement programmes.

Peter Luff: I receive monthly reports and quarterly detailed project health checks on the Ministry of Defence's largest projects. Last year, discounting deliberate policy decisions made by the previous Government, the MOD met all its targets to deliver its major projects to cost, time and performance. This year looks equally encouraging. The top 30 major projects are also reviewed annually by the National Audit Office and in this year's report the Comptroller and Auditor General said:
	"In-year performance on the majority of large defence projects which we examined has been encouraging".
	But we should not wait for the NAO to tell us how we are doing at the end of the year. That is why I can announce to the House today that the Secretary of State and I are forming a major projects performance board that will review our most significant projects regularly.

Claire Perry: I thank the Minister for that reply. Does he agree that in a long line of procurement failures from the previous Government, the £38 billion overspend in the defence budget takes the biscuit? Will he reassure the House on what steps will be taken so that that level of commercial failure will be, like the idea of a Labour Government, a thing of the past?  [ Interruption. ]

Peter Luff: I hear howls of protest from the Opposition Front Bench, but over the weekend I heard the shadow Secretary of State fessing up to major failures in procurement. I strongly agree with my hon. Friend.
	I am happy to tell you, Mr Speaker, that I cannot comply with your request for short answers and do justice to my hon. Friend's question because we have a range of measures in place to achieve precisely that outcome, including stronger controls over the entry for new projects in the equipment programme; a formal project start-up process that considers requirement risk, technical viability risk, affordability and deliverability; improving key skills; working closely with the NAO; and reaffirming our commitment to regular defence reviews. All that will achieve exactly the outcome that she so rightly desires.

Mr Speaker: We are most grateful.

Mark Lancaster: Historically, one of the fundamental problems with procurement has been a disconnect between Ministers, civil servants, uniformed personnel and the defence industry. How do we intend to address that problem in the future?

Peter Luff: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We talk of a conspiracy of optimism in these major projects that has so often characterised procurement decisions in the past. The list I rattled through in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Claire Perry) partly addresses the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster). I am sorry that I said it so fast, but it was important to get it on the record. If I do not deliver on that, I think my job will be on the line.

Cyber-attacks

Robert Halfon: What recent steps his Department has taken to reduce the risk of cyber-attacks on the defence estate; and if he will make a statement.

Nick Harvey: As we set out in the strategic defence and security review, we attach a high priority to the cyber-defence of our systems. The Government have placed a renewed focus on that threat. We have recognised attacks through cyber-space as a tier 1 risk to national security and put an extra £650 million in place to enhance our protection. There are technical and procedural measures in place to protect MOD systems from cyber-attack and to ensure we can mitigate the impact of those attacks. The House will understand if I do not comment further on the detail of those measures.

Robert Halfon: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Following the welcome Stuxnet viral attack on the Iranian nuclear facility, what steps is the Ministry of Defence taking to avoid a similar assault on our internet infrastructure?

Nick Harvey: Our cyber-defences are regularly tested by intruders, and we are confident in our defences. The threat, of course, is changing in extent and complexity, which requires continual improvements in our security measures and novel approaches to deal with the more sophisticated threats.

James Morris: Recent news reports have indicated that cyber-attacks by WikiLeaks on critical national infrastructure are only likely to grow. Does the Minister agree that we must involve the private sector in ensuring that we can be ahead of the game when it comes to our cyber-security?

Nick Harvey: Yes. We are committed to working closely with the private sector in defence not only of our own systems but of those across Government. Many are, of course, provided by the private sector, so it is essential that we have the strongest possible partnership with it.

Afghanistan

Caroline Dinenage: What recent progress has been made on the transition towards Afghan-led security and the withdrawal of UK forces from Afghanistan.

Liam Fox: As I said in answer to an earlier question, the strength of the Afghan national army currently stands at around 144,000 and of the Afghan national police at around 116,000. Through continued investment in Afghan forces, we are confident that, by the end of 2014, they will be able to take the lead for security across their country.

Caroline Dinenage: Given that answer-that our aspiration is to withdraw from Afghanistan and that the SDSR is focused on supporting our troops over there-are we still wise to have effective cuts in our expeditionary fighting capabilities, particularly in light of recent events in North Korea?

Liam Fox: In terms of what is happening in Afghanistan, we have made it very clear not only that that is the primary aim of our activity in the Ministry of Defence, but that it would be unaffected by the SDSR, including that particular expeditionary capability. It is not just what the armed forces are doing that contributes to that security: the UK's biggest direct police training effort is in Helmand, where we have 77 UK military personnel and nine MOD police improving the quality of the Afghan police, who are just as important as the Afghan national army for long-term security.

Paul Flynn: Why is the Secretary of State still in denial about the number of desertions and dismissals from the Afghan army and police being similar to the number of new recruits? Will he face up to the fact that when NATO leaves and the Afghan Government are fleeing to their boltholes in Dubai, the number of people deserting the Afghan army will increase massively?

Liam Fox: It is the hon. Gentleman's opinion that flies in the face of the facts. The net size of both the Afghan national army and police are increasing, as is their capability, and the governance that will ultimately determine how they are deployed is improving. There is cause for cautious optimism and it does nothing for the morale of our forces when people constantly pretend that there cannot possibly be a positive outcome in Afghanistan.

Sea King Helicopters

Tony Cunningham: What studies his Department has undertaken on the feasibility of operating the existing fleet of Sea King search and rescue helicopters beyond 2016; and if he will make a statement.

Peter Luff: As part of the review of the search and rescue helicopter project a number of options have been considered, including extending the current search and rescue Sea King helicopters beyond 2016. An announcement will be made shortly.

Tony Cunningham: I thank the Minister for that answer, but will he explain why he plans to spend about £7 billion on American search and rescue helicopters rather than upgrade the Sea Kings at a fraction of the cost? Sea Kings did an incredible job during the flooding in my constituency.

Peter Luff: Apart from anything else, that is the plan we inherited. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that all options are being considered extremely carefully. I repeat that an announcement will be made shortly.

Service Accommodation

Ian Lavery: What steps his Department is taking to raise the standard of service accommodation.

Andrew Robathan: The Government place a high priority on the welfare of service personnel and their families and will therefore seek to improve accommodation where necessary. More than 95% of service family accommodation properties in the UK are currently at the top two standards, out of four, for condition.

Ian Lavery: The Minister will be aware that as a result of the sale of the Chelsea barracks in 2007, £959 million was raised. Can he confirm that that money will be ring-fenced for service accommodation and that any future investment during the comprehensive spending review period will be new, rather than previously allocated, investment?

Andrew Robathan: There was a story in the  News of the World which was not entirely correct.  [ Interruption. ] It was not entirely correct. A great deal of money was raised from the sale of Chelsea barracks but that was some four years ago when I do not recall our being in power. Having checked on this we have discovered that although the money is not ring-fenced, because we do not believe it should be, we have spent the vast majority of it and we will spend well in excess of that amount. As a matter of interest, on Thursday I was fortuitously at Bulford, where I started the work on a new married quarters estate that will provide 260 state-of-the-art houses for our deserving personnel.

Armed Forces Personnel (Redundancies)

Huw Irranca-Davies: What effects the redundancies in the armed forces announced in the strategic defence and security review will have on standing commitments.

Nick Harvey: The strategic defence and security review sets out the requirements for the armed forces' contribution to standing commitments and identifies the restructured forces we will need over the next 10 years to meet them. Changes to the armed forces will not affect our non-discretionary standing commitments.

Huw Irranca-Davies: In respect of the cancellation of the Nimrod mark IV maritime patrol aircraft, does the Minister agree with the First Sea Lord, who said earlier this month that he was "very uncomfortable" about it and that
	"I don't welcome the loss of the Nimrod"?
	Are there any plans to replace the Nimrod and is it acceptable to make such cuts in our capability when military personnel are so concerned?

Nick Harvey: I entirely agree, as do all Ministers, with the discomfort that the First Sea Lord feels about this; the decision not to bring the Nimrod MRA4 into service was very difficult. We will have to bear some risk-it would be wrong to claim otherwise-but we will mitigate that risk by using other assets in the meantime, just as the previous Government had embarked on doing.

Defence Industry

Graham Jones: What recent discussions his Department has had with representatives of the defence industry on the effects of the reductions in expenditure proposed in the strategic defence and security review.

Peter Luff: Ministers and officials have had many discussions with industry representatives both during and since the outcome of the strategic defence and security review was announced in October, including a full meeting of the National Defence Industries Council, which I chaired last month.

Graham Jones: In October 1,000 people were put out of work by BAE Systems in Lancashire, and last week a further 1,300 job losses were announced, owing to SDSR cuts. Does the Minister think that these job losses are a price worth paying, and does he agree that they will have an adverse impact on the economy of east Lancashire?

Peter Luff: I emphatically do not think that is a price worth paying, but sadly it is a price that we have to pay, thanks to the economic incompetence of the previous Government.

Topical Questions

Duncan Hames: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Liam Fox: My departmental responsibilities are to ensure that our country is properly defended now and in the future, that our service personnel have the right equipment and training to allow them to succeed in their military tasks, and that we honour the military covenant.

Duncan Hames: What measures will the Minister be taking to improve the timeliness and reliability of the service voting scheme ahead of next year's elections and referendum?

Liam Fox: It would have been highly desirable to make the changes that we envisage ahead of the elections next May. It is unlikely that we will be able to do so in that time frame, but it is clear that change is needed. It is primarily a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but we have had a number of ministerial discussions between the two Departments to try to clarify those plans and to ensure that we have a legislative slot to enable us to implement them as quickly as possible.

Jim Murphy: We have heard again today that our armed forces are helping to create new freedoms in Afghanistan. Here at home, the right to protest peacefully is crucial, but in recent days we have seen the appalling violation of the Cenotaph. Will the Secretary of State support an all-party cross-Government approach to see whether our war memorials, which are engraved with the names of many of our country's heroes, are properly protected from the actions of the few of our country's mindless hooligans?

Liam Fox: I fully associate myself with the comments of the shadow Defence Secretary. There must be outrage across this country at some of the scenes that we witnessed last week. In particular, it might be worth emphasising in the House to those students who took part in some of those demonstrations and who seem to take the freedoms that they have so much for granted that those freedoms were won by the sacrifices of previous generations, the names of whom are commemorated on some of those monuments. They deserve to be treated with far greater respect than they were last week.

Therese Coffey: 23 Engineer Regiment is based in my constituency and is one of a number of regiments currently serving in Helmand. The Minister has already taken the opportunity to pay tribute to all those involved in Operation Herrick 13, including our Danish and Estonian friends, but will he also pay tribute to the families of our brave servicemen and women who provide such strong emotional support, especially in this Christmas season?

Nick Harvey: I have great pleasure in doing exactly that and paying tribute to all those who are serving in Afghanistan, who will be away from their families over Christmas. Our thoughts are with the families as well. On the contribution being made in Helmand by our friends and allies from Denmark and Estonia, they have both been terrific and resolute allies to us and it will be my pleasure to visit both countries later this week to thank them for what they are doing and to discuss future co-operation.

Derek Twigg: On "The Andrew Marr Show" yesterday, the former Prime Minister, John Major, said
	"what I am wary of is giving advance notice of leaving. If you were Taliban what would you do on hearing that troops were leaving in 12 to 24 months? I think you would just wait until they had gone. We have to be clear what we are doing and"
	why we are doing it.
	Can the Secretary of State tell us why he thinks the former Prime Minister, who is supportive of the current Prime Minister, feels the need to say that now?

Liam Fox: As I said, there are no short-term milestones in terms of numbers, so there is no possibility of us setting out in advance the numbers that withdraw in 12 or 24 months. The Prime Minister made it clear that we may be able to reduce troop numbers if conditions on the ground are suitable.

Tony Baldry: What is the MOD's role in the European Defence Agency?

Gerald Howarth: We have decided to extend our membership of the European Defence Agency provisionally for two years, during which time we want to see the agency focus on capability-building, not institution-creation. The EDA, with the support of most other member states, wanted a 4% budget increase, but I am very pleased to be able to report to the House that at last week's meeting of EU Defence Ministers I was able to secure their agreement, nem. con., on a budget freeze, saving the British taxpayer about £200,000.

Angus Robertson: Moray has the most defence-dependent economy in the UK, and recently the Ministry of Defence announced the closure of RAF Kinloss in the region. Given that neighbouring RAF Lossiemouth has already been rated as the best base for the next generation of fast jets, will the Secretary of State confirm that the ongoing RAF basing review is considering the unparalleled economic and social dislocation that would be caused by a double-base closure in Moray?

Liam Fox: The primary purpose of the basing review is to get the best defence outcomes for the United Kingdom. Obviously, those who represent seats in the area, the Scottish Government, the Scotland Office and others will wish to make representations about other aspects, including the social and economic impact, but the Ministry of Defence's recommendations will be based on the military solutions and what is best for the country as a whole.

Stephen Lloyd: Will the Minister update me on the progress of the reserved forces review, mentioned in the SDSR, and confirm that there will be no cuts to 56 Signal Squadron? It is partly based in my constituency, and I personally had the good fortune to witness the skill and dedication of its members during the cold snap, when, if it had not been for them, I think my local hospital would have struggled to stay open.

Andrew Robathan: I certainly pay tribute to the Signal Squadron and its work during the cold snap. The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot pre-empt the review, which only started less than two months ago, by saying whether there will be any changes to the squadron's configuration. What I can say is that we very much value the commitment and contribution of the reserves both at home and, now, on operational deployments.

Jeremy Corbyn: We are constantly being told that the next Parliament after 2015 will have to take the final decision on replacing the Trident nuclear missile system. Exactly how much money, which would otherwise not need to be spent, will be spent between now and then in preparing for that decision?

Liam Fox: That will depend on the initial gate decision and what flows from it, but it will be necessary to spend money to make it very clear that we are undertaking the research and development work that will be essential in allowing us to make that final decision. On the Government's policy, there is no change: we are committed to a submarine-based, continuous at-sea deterrent, because we believe that it is not only most effective, but cost-effective for the United Kingdom in an uncertain world.

Sajid Javid: I find myself, surprisingly, echoing the comments of the shadow Defence Secretary. Many of my constituents were outraged by the desecration of our nation's most revered war memorial, the Cenotaph, last week by student yobs. No one has the right-no matter what the reason-to disrespect our fallen soldiers, and we should remember that their sacrifices allowed those people to demonstrate in the first place. Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning those acts and in calling for the full force of the law to be used against those who carried out that wicked deed?

Liam Fox: In the spirit of Christmas, my hon. Friend should not be surprised that he now and again agrees with the shadow Defence Secretary. I do, again, echo those comments. Last week we saw a number of students who were peaceful protesters in support of their aim and we saw a number whose behaviour got out of hand, but to my eye we also saw a number of hard-line, anarchist and subversive groups parading on our streets, and that is utterly unacceptable in a free, liberal and democratic society.

John Woodcock: May I take the Minister back to RAF search and rescue? Does he not understand the concerns of my constituents and the many thousands of people who walk and climb in the Lake district that we might be about to pay substantially more for an inferior service? If it remains the cheapest and best-value option to re-fit the existing helicopters, will he consider doing so?

Peter Luff: I can reassure the House that the Government are absolutely committed to best-value options, unlike the Labour party. I repeat that the announcement will be made very shortly and the hon. Gentleman will be able to judge the decision on its merits. I am afraid I can say nothing further until then.

Andrew Selous: Will the Secretary of State give the House an as full as possible update on the ability of the Afghan Government to prevent terrorist organisations from organising within their own borders?

Liam Fox: As I said, along with the international community, we are making a major investment in the capability of the Afghan national security forces-both the army and the police-to establish a permanent rule of law and security in Afghanistan. The command structure of the Taliban and al-Qaeda has recently been disrupted, but it is worth the House noting that it is not simply the Government of Afghanistan who are involved in this. We require the constant co-operation of the Pakistan Government if we are to make that very vulnerable border between Afghanistan and Pakistan as safe as possible and give terrorists as little chance as we can of having a safe haven.

Mark Hendrick: The Secretary of State will be aware of the 1,400 job losses announced by BAE Systems as a result of Government cuts. That is a tremendous blow to the people of Preston, particularly those working at Samlesbury and Warton. Will he undertake to support tranche 3B of the Eurofighter Typhoon project, which they have not yet approved, and the joint strike fighter aircraft for the new two aircraft carriers?

Liam Fox: It is always regrettable when there are job losses. We remember that, behind every number, a family will undergo financial hardship as a consequence of such decisions. I give the hon. Gentleman an absolute assurance that we will be promoting Typhoon at every possible opportunity. I had a number of discussions in the Gulf last week on that issue and I recently visited India to try to boost the Typhoon bid. We are fully committed to the joint strike fighter, which will give us a fifth generation capability far greater than anything we currently have and offer intelligence, surveillance, target acquisition and reconnaissance-ISTAR-capabilities, which will see us well into the first half of the century.

Stephen Phillips: My hon. Friend will be aware of the sacrifice of the thousands of men and women of Bomber Command during the second world war. That sacrifice has never been properly recognised by the award of a campaign medal. When will it be?

Andrew Robathan: May I take this opportunity to pay tribute to those of Bomber Command and, indeed, to the whole of the Royal Air Force during the second world war? They fought to defend our freedom so successfully and we owe them an enormous amount.
	A review into medals is taking place-indeed, there are meetings his week-and I am also having meetings about a Bomber Command memorial, which will go up opposite the Royal Air Force Club in St James's park. It is a very fine memorial, and I look forward to it being erected and to paying proper tribute to Bomber Command, which I know some people feel has been slightly forgotten.

Gisela Stuart: Further to the Secretary of State's earlier statement that there will still be British troops in Afghanistan post-2015, will he confirm whether Afghan national security forces or someone else will be responsible for their security?

Liam Fox: It is very clear that the aim is to have the threat degraded and the capability of the Afghan national security forces increased, so that they can take control of their own security. Some assistance with training and support may be required, but it is very clear-President Karzai has repeatedly made it clear-that it is the wish of the sovereign Government of Afghanistan that they take control of their own security by the end of 2014.

Menzies Campbell: What possible strategic advantage would there be in the closure of RAF Leuchars in my constituency, when the base is uniquely geographically positioned to provide comprehensive air defence for the northern half of the United Kingdom?

Liam Fox: My right hon. and learned Friend makes an eloquent bid for the retention of the base in his constituency, as he has also done in private. As I said in answer to an earlier question, the basing review will be based purely on what gives Britain the best defence network. We will be taking those decisions over the coming months. We understand that there will be other considerations but, in determining our bases, it is the Ministry of Defence's job to consider what makes Britain safest.

Paul Flynn: When will the Secretary of State face the truth that his irrational optimism about a victory in Afghanistan is based on three collapsing foundations-the Afghan Government and the endemically corrupt police and army? Will he ask himself the question that haunted Senator Kerry in the last days of the Vietnam war: "Who will be the last soldier I will send to his death for a mistake?"?

Liam Fox: I do not believe for a moment that it is irrational optimism that drives a coalition of 48 countries to want to see not only better security, but better governance in that part of the world, which has a global impact. I would far rather be a victim of hope than despair.

Sarah Newton: Will my right hon. Friend pay tribute to our armed services, including reservists, who are prepared at a moment's notice to mobilise to help in a national emergency such as that in Edinburgh last week?

Liam Fox: Our armed forces responded in a number of parts of the country to the snow emergency that we saw last week. In response to the request from Edinburgh city council, we immediately made armed forces assets available. I am sure that it is to the delight of the whole House, and especially to the Scottish Government and the Scottish nationalists, that it was Her Majesty's United Kingdom forces whom we were able to deploy for that purpose.

Huw Irranca-Davies: I think we can all agree on the overriding importance that this House places on the defence training needs of the whole of the UK armed forces tri-services. In a debate last week, we tried to get an answer to the question of what is the future of the defence training academy at St Athan after the news of its cancellation, but answer came there none. Can the Minister now give us an update with some clarity on what is the future for St Athan?

Nick Harvey: The defence training requirement across the three services is being reviewed in the light of the collapse of the project at St Athan. We are identifying possible sites either for tri-service training or taking the three services separately, and we will make an announcement when we have concluded that work in the spring.

Oliver Colvile: Will my right hon. Friend update the House on Britain's role and strategic involvement in the middle east following the talks held in Manama?

Liam Fox: There has been a substantial amount of diplomatic activity by all parts of the Government, including the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office. There have been a number of visits to Gulf countries as part of our Gulf initiative to strengthen the relationships in what is a very important strategic part of the world. At the Manama dialogue, I had a number of bilaterals where I had discussions with the United States and some of our most important allies in the region.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. As usual, demand has exceeded the time available, and we must now move on.

Public Order Policing

Theresa May: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a statement about the appalling violence that took place during last week's protests outside Parliament.
	I want first to express my gratitude to those police officers and commanders who put themselves in harm's way. They showed great bravery and professionalism in the face of violence and provocation. It was this bravery that enabled this House to engage unhindered in democratic debate, and I know that the whole House will want to send them our thanks. I also want to thank Sir Paul Stephenson, who led the Metropolitan Police Service through a difficult operation and who serves London as commissioner with distinction.
	Hon. Members may find it useful if I recap last week's events. On Thursday, 3,000 people assembled at the university of London union to march through central London. By the time the crowd reached Parliament square, police estimate that the number of demonstrators had grown to 15,000. The police maintained a barrier system outside the Palace of Westminster that allowed pedestrian access and the business of the House to continue at all times. Concerted attempts were made to breach the barrier lines. Protestors threw bottles, stones, paint, golf balls and flares, and attacked police with metal fencing.
	A cordon was placed around Parliament square, but, throughout, those who remained peaceful and wished to leave via Whitehall were able to do so. A large number of protesters remained, many of whom committed acts of violent disorder, damaging historic statues in Parliament square, breaking windows and starting fires. Sporadic disorder also took place in the west end. It is quite clear that those acts were perpetrated not by a small minority, but by a significant number of trouble makers.
	Some students behaved disgracefully. However, the police assess that the protests were infiltrated by organised groups of hardcore activists and street gangs bent on violence. Evidence from the other recent protests shows that many of those who caused violence were organised thugs, as well as students. It is highly likely that that was also the case last week.
	I want to be absolutely clear that the blame for the violence lies squarely and solely with those who carried it out. The idea advanced by some that police tactics were to blame, when people came armed with sticks, flares, fireworks, stones and snooker balls, is as ridiculous as it is unfair.
	We have a culture of policing in this country that is based on popular consent and trust between the police and the public. That must continue.
	Thursday's police operation involved 2,800 officers. More than 30 officers were injured, of whom six required hospital treatment. All six have been discharged from hospital. Forty-three protesters were injured.
	The Independent Police Complaints Commission has begun an independent investigation into the incident that left one protestor seriously injured. Right hon. and hon. Members will understand that it is not appropriate for me to comment further on that incident while the IPCC investigation is ongoing.
	The Metropolitan police have confirmed that 35 people have been arrested so far. I expect that number to rise significantly as the criminal investigation continues. I confirm that there has been a good public response to the police's request for information on the 14 key perpetrators of violence, photographs of whom were published on Sunday. The Met will continue to publish pictures of key individuals in the week ahead.
	I also want to inform the House about the attack on the royal car. The House will be aware that on their way to an engagement in central London, the car carrying the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall was attacked by several protesters. There has been much speculation about the Duchess being struck through the window of the car. I understand that some contact was made.
	The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has ordered an urgent review of the royalty protection arrangements that were in place on the night, which is due to report by Friday 17 December. Hon. Members will understand that, for security reasons, the public details of the report may be limited. I will await the findings of that review before deciding what, if any, further action is needed.
	The Prince and the Duchess have already expressed their gratitude to the police. I am sure that the whole House will join me in condemning all the acts of violence that took place last week. I call on the organisers of the protests unequivocally to condemn violence as well.
	The Government are determined to protect the right to peaceful protest, but violence is absolutely unacceptable and the perpetrators of that violence must be brought to justice.

Edward Balls: All Labour Members understand and share the dismay, anger and injustice that are felt by hundreds of thousands of students and young people at the deeply unfair hike in tuition fees and the abolition of education maintenance allowance. All Labour Members also share the Home Secretary's anger and outrage at the way in which last Thursday's legitimate day of action was hijacked by a small but significant minority bent on provocation, violence and criminal damage.
	The whole country was shocked and appalled at the cowardly and despicable attack on the car carrying His Royal Highness, the Prince of Wales, and the Duchess of Cornwall. The Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and the Home Secretary have our full support in taking all the steps that are necessary to bring the perpetrators of that violence to justice.
	Scenes of mass violence and protest on our streets are sights that all in this generation hoped we would not see again. We all have a responsibility-from student leaders and police chiefs, through to politicians and Prime Ministers-to do everything we can to avoid such confrontations in the future: we have to keep the peace. Here, there are lessons to be learned, and I have some detailed questions for the Home Secretary that I hope she can answer.
	I start by saying that I agree wholeheartedly with the Home Secretary that the right first step is to await the report of the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police and to resist jumping to any hasty conclusions. There is clearly a difficult balance for our police leaders to strike between containment to control violence and ensuring that the innocent are not caught up, harmed or held for lengthy periods. If there are individual cases in which police officers overstep the mark, the right first step is for the IPCC to investigate, as is happening in the case of Mr Meadows. The commissioner is right to demand that all police officers must display their identification at all times.
	It is important, too, that we recognise the bravery and commitment that our police officers showed last Thursday in the face of extreme provocation and physical danger. Without their professionalism and restraint, there would have been many more casualties.
	I wish to ask the Home Secretary about royal protection, prosecutions, resourcing and police tactics. On royal security, given that this was the fourth time in a few weeks that a protest descended into violence, did she personally ask for and see a thorough assessment of the security of the royal family and other key individuals and buildings in advance of last Thursday's protests? At a time of rising security threats, and with the royal wedding coming next year, will she agree to shelve the cost-cutting review of royal security that is currently on her desk? When she sees the report from the commissioner on the particular lapse in royal security last Thursday, will she commission a new and wider review of the current level of threat to, and the security needs of, the royal family, including cars used for travelling around London?
	On the protests more widely, people were appalled to see on their TV screens pictures of protestors urinating on the statue of Winston Churchill, swinging on flags on the Cenotaph or causing widespread criminal damage. It is important that those who commit violent acts are brought, and seen to be brought, to justice, so will the Home Secretary tell the House not just how many protestors have been arrested but how many have actually been charged following these and earlier disturbances? It is important that we know that fact.
	On resources, the Met deployed 3,000 officers last Thursday. On the day when the Home Secretary is announcing the biggest peacetime cuts to police funding in more than a century, can she confirm that next year and the year after, our police will still have the resources to police major events and keep our communities safe? Given that the biggest cuts in police budgets and numbers in London and across the country are scheduled to fall in the year of the Olympics, can she explain why, despite previously telling the House that the £600 million budget for Olympics policing and security would be protected, she is now seeking to cut it to £475 million-a 21% reduction that will put further pressure on police budgets-as she has announced this afternoon?
	I turn to police tactics and the future use of water cannon and rubber bullets. Will the Home Secretary agree to set aside her own views and respect the operational judgment of the head of the Association of Chief Police Officers, Sir Hugh Orde, that the use of water cannon and rubber bullets in protests would be a blunt instrument and very difficult, and would risk escalating matters and doing more harm than good?
	Finally, given that we have Second Reading of the police Bill this afternoon, and that for the first time we will have a single elected individual with the power to direct policing, can the Home Secretary tell the House what would happen if, in future, an elected police commissioner were to make a manifesto commitment to introduce water cannon and rubber bullets? Who would decide how best to keep our streets safe-the chief constable or the politician?

Theresa May: I welcome the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the police who so bravely stood up to the demonstrators and ensured that Parliament was protected last week during the demonstrations, and indeed the police who took action and policed London during the demonstrations that occurred on two previous days.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked me a number of questions, including about royal protection and whether there should be a wider review in future. We regularly examine the provision of the protection scheme for members of the royal family, and indeed the protection that, as he will be aware, the Metropolitan police provides to other individuals in the UK, including a number of politicians such as members of the Government. It is important that that is done. It is also important that we clearly identify what happened in this incident and whether any issues need to be addressed as a result, and factor that into any considerations in the review of royal protection.
	As the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, the number of people who have been arrested is varying, and is a moving feast. If I may, I will update him on the number of people who have been charged, but he will recognise that it will be changing over time-

Chris Bryant: What is it now?

Theresa May: Information will be provided to the office of the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) separately. We will do that to ensure that he knows the figure. He mentioned resources, but I have to say to him that, as someone who worked closely with the Chancellor and the Prime Minister under the previous Labour Government, and who has made something of a name for himself on the issue of figures, he really needs to pay a little more attention to the figures- [ Interruption. ] He says he is not asking about that, but he specifically asked me about Olympic security, and said that we would no longer be providing the £600 million we had set aside for that purpose.

Edward Balls: indicated  assent .

Theresa May: I see that he is nodding. I refer him to the written ministerial statement on police funding that was tabled in Parliament this morning:
	"Safety and security for the 2010 Olympics and Paralympics is a priority for this Government",
	and a £600 million funding envelope will remain available for this purpose.

Edward Balls: Read on.

Theresa May: I am very happy to read the next bit. The right hon. Gentleman does not understand this, and it tells us quite a lot about his and his colleagues' attitude to funding. That £600 million has been protected; he said that it had not been, but it has. It has been possible, through efficiencies, to look at the amount we currently consider it might be necessary to spend, and we go on to say that we are confident that we can deliver this for around £475 million, but we are protecting- [ Interruption. ] Oh, so the right hon. Gentleman does not believe in trying to save money! That tells us a lot about him.
	The right hon. Gentleman also mentioned the general issue of resources, and, yes, the funding allocations for individual police forces have been announced in the written ministerial statement today. I simply remind him that the Metropolitan police, in dealing with the incidents and demonstrations that took place last month and this month, are largely operating on the budget that was set by the Labour Government.
	The right hon. Gentleman commented on tactics, and he mentioned rubber bullets. I do not think that, so far, either I or anybody on this side of the House has suggested the use of rubber bullets. I will clarify the position on water cannon. It is of course the responsibility of the Home Office to set the legal parameters for measures that can be used by the police, and, as I speak, water cannon have yet to be approved as a piece of equipment that can be used by the police. Then, senior police officers have the operational responsibility to decide what equipment they use, currently in agreement with police authorities and, in future, in agreement with police and crime commissioners. In relation to London, that decision would be agreed with the Mayor of London, who is the equivalent of a police and crime commissioner. I think that that mixture of legal oversight, professional discretion and democratic consent has to be right. However, I do not think that anyone wants to see water cannon used on the streets of Britain. As I said in my statement, if the right hon. Gentleman heard me, we have a different attitude to the culture of policing here in the UK. We police by consent, and that depends on trust between the police and the public. A range of measures is available to the police, and I do not think that water cannon is needed.
	The right hon. Gentleman asked about police and crime commissioners, and said that, in future, they would have the power to direct policing. In advance of our debate later this afternoon, may I tell him that that is precisely what the police and crime commissioners will not have? Operational independence of the police chiefs will be maintained with police and crime commissioners, and if he does not understand that he obviously does not understand the Bill we shall debate later.
	The police did a good job last Thursday, as they have done at previous demonstrations. They did make some errors, as the commissioner admitted, in relation to the first day of student demonstrations. We should thank them for all that they do to ensure that Parliament can carry on its debates unhindered by protesters.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. Many right hon. and hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye. There are two further statements to follow, before we even reach the main business of the day, so if I am to accommodate the maximum number of colleagues on this statement, brevity in question and answer alike is essential.

David Tredinnick: Having faced rioters in Northern Ireland, I think that the fundamental problem was the route, which put thousands of potentially infiltrated marches down Whitehall, with symbols of authority on both sides. It would have been much better to route the march to a public park-Southwark park or Hyde park-which I understand the National Union of Students wanted for the first march. Why are we not using snatch squads to take out the ringleaders before they can incite violence?

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for his observations. Difficult judgments are made about the routes of these marches. He refers to the decisions, or the desires, of the NUS. One of the disappointments of what has happened so far is that, although the police have engaged with the NUS and discussed possible routes, a significant number of people have, sadly, come along purely to cause trouble, and the police have been dealing with them as best they can.

David Blunkett: I endorse what the Home Secretary and my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) said about violence helping only the exact opposite cause to that which the students seek to espouse. Will the report that will be produced on Friday deal in detail with the breakdown of and lapse in intelligence and communication, which is highly unusual with the protection service? Above all, will she say whether, under the police Bill, she would report to the House at all if such a demonstration took place in London, or more likely in Leeds, Liverpool or Sheffield, and there was a breakdown of law and order?

Theresa May: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his opening remarks. In relation to what the report on royal protection will go into, he referred to a couple of matters on which there has been press speculation, such as the communications equipment. That is exactly the sort of issue that the report will consider. It will look in detail at exactly what happened, and will come out on Friday, although the amount of information that can be made public will be limited.
	On the second point, I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am here making a statement, and that we already have the equivalent of a police and crime commissioner in London-the Mayor.

Tom Brake: Does the Home Secretary agree that there should be no knee-jerk reaction to this cowardly attack? We do not want to change the relationship between British citizens and the royal family, nor should we change policing tactics radically by introducing water cannon or rubber bullets.

Theresa May: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and have said so on a couple of occasions, both in my statement and in response to the shadow Home Secretary.

Keith Vaz: I am most grateful to the Home Secretary for agreeing to appear before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow, when I am sure she will be probed on these and other issues. She is right that the police did an excellent job in protecting the Houses of Parliament, but there were concerns about other areas of the city. Although there will be an internal investigation, does she not consider it appropriate that Sir Denis O'Connor, chief inspector of Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, provide guidance, not just for the Metropolitan police but for police in other areas, as that would be of great value to those who have to police such demonstrations in different cities in the future?

Theresa May: I look forward to appearing before the Home Affairs Committee tomorrow. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues will have a number of very pertinent questions. There has already been a review of public order policing, but Sir Denis O'Connor is looking again at that review, in the light of what has taken place.

David Davies: Does the Home Secretary acknowledge that one problem is that the police know that any attempt to deal with violent protest will be met by a barrage of complaints to the IPCC, which some in high places will support? Does she accept that it is time that we started to think a little more about the human rights of police officers to do their jobs free of assault and injury?

Theresa May: In any such instances, the police have a balance to attain when policing protests. It is right that they should be accountable for their actions, and that the IPPC looks into questions and complaints about police actions, as with the individual who was seriously injured. However, it is also right for us to make it absolutely clear that the violence was the fault of those who came along determined to perpetrate it.

Alun Michael: I was particularly impressed with the intelligent, engaged and reasonable way in which many students came from my constituency to the House to lobby me as an MP, but is it not sad that the Home Secretary said nothing about them in her statement? What is she doing to encourage the police and the protest organisers to work together so that the voice of reasonable, legal protest is not silenced?

Theresa May: The police have the job not only of protecting Parliament and keeping our streets safe at such times, but of ensuring that peaceful protest can take place. That is what they were doing. Significantly, they ensured that pedestrian access to the House was open at all times so that a number of students who wished to come and lobby their Members of Parliament could do so. They had their voice heard and Parliament was able to debate unhindered the topic under consideration, and the police did a very good job.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Mr Speaker: Order. I must just remind the House that in keeping with very long-standing convention, Members who were not here at the start of the Home Secretary's statement should not expect to be called.

Julian Lewis: Does the Home Secretary accept that it is just as unacceptable for violent extremists to be present at student demonstrations as it would be for provocative foreign preachers to be present in the country when they have threatened to burn the Koran?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend has very cleverly linked two issues in his question, but he tempts me down a route that I do not think it appropriate to go down at this point.

Paul Goggins: May I join the Home Secretary in what she said about the violence and the conduct of the police last week? Unlike some of my hon. Friends, I would not completely rule out consideration of the use of water cannon, although nobody should think of that as a panacea. It is worth recalling that the last time water cannon was used-in Belfast-it was in the face of sustained attack from blast bombs and live rounds. Does she agree that the commissioner's priorities on days such as last Thursday must be good intelligence, effective communication and the earliest possible arrest of those who come looking for violence?

Theresa May: Indeed. The importance of intelligence and understanding what could happen is a significant element in the policing of such events. The use of water cannon has not traditionally been a part of the British model of policing. It has been used in Northern Ireland on occasions, but when there has been live fire, as the right hon. Gentleman said, which is a different sort of circumstance. It is important that we take operational advice from the police. Ultimately, such matters are operational police decisions, but, as I said, in England and Wales, it is a matter for the Home Office to determine whether using such measures is legal.

Andrew Murrison: Does the Home Secretary share the dismay of my constituents from the garrison town of Warminster at the truly gross acts perpetrated against the Cenotaph in Whitehall? Does she hope, like they do, that the criminal justice system is particularly severe on privileged and expensively educated people who should know better?

Theresa May: It is absolutely essential that all those who perpetrated acts of criminal damage and violence feel the full force of the law on them. The vast majority of the public of this country were dismayed to see a privileged young man desecrate the Cenotaph in that way, and attempt to desecrate the memory of our troops. They will contrast the bravery of our troops in Afghanistan with the actions of that individual.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I welcome the Home Secretary's statement and associate myself with her condemnation of the thugs who invaded parts of this city last week. I also observe, however, that parts of the police operation, especially the royal detail, gave the appearance of being a shambles. That will require a serious report. Can she comment on whether a request has already been made for two water cannon to be drawn from the stock of six available in Northern Ireland? Is she aware of any conversations in that regard between the Metropolitan Police Commissioner and the Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland?

Theresa May: On the tactics used by the police when policing demonstrations, the police will always consider all the available options. I have set out clearly the current position on the use of water cannon in England and Wales, but that has not yet been approved by the Home Office-

Chris Bryant: Not yet?

Theresa May: That is a correct statement of the facts. None have yet been approved for use in England and Wales, but of course such decisions must be taken in the light of the operational advice of the police.

Julian Huppert: I absolutely deplore the violence and recognise the challenge that the police face in trying to ensure a proportionate response. However, does the Home Secretary recognise that there is still concern about the use of kettling and the handful of police officers who allegedly covered up their identification numbers? Will she look into these matters and make a statement to the House?

Theresa May: Of course, it is important that any complaints made about how the police operated are looked into and properly investigated. They should be accountable.

Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Home Secretary confident that every peaceful protestor contained within a cordon was aware that they could leave peacefully via Whitehall?

Theresa May: Of course I was not actually down there talking to every protester. The police have assured me that a significant number of peaceful protesters left Parliament square, that that option was open to individuals, and that they facilitated it.

Justin Tomlinson: Will the thugs responsible be made to pay financially for the criminal damage caused?

Theresa May: It is important that the full force of the law is brought down on those identified as clearly guilty of criminal damage and violence.

David Hanson: Does the Home Secretary recall that in last year's policing White Paper it was suggested that a protocol be compiled by police officers, police authorities and the Government on the policing of protests? Will she update us on the progress of that protocol?

Theresa May: It is clear that there should be regular reviews of how public order policing is undertaken. I have already said, in response to a question from the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, that HMIC, having looked at public order policing, is now further considering the matter in response to the recent incidents.

Tobias Ellwood: There are occasions when the national community spirit of what is right and wrong can be as powerful as the law itself. I was encouraged to see a sense of national disgust and outrage at the events on Thursday, particularly the deliberate damage to the Cenotaph and the statue of Churchill-an insult to the people who championed the very freedoms that allowed the protesters to stage their protest in the first place.

Theresa May: Indeed. My hon. Friend is absolutely correct to say that the damage done to the Cenotaph and the sort of behaviour we saw there brought those demonstrators into disrepute. Also, many members of the public felt sick at the sight of a privileged individual behaving in that way, especially given that our brave troops in Afghanistan are putting their lives on the line for us every minute of the day.

David Winnick: No one here-I include myself in that-wants to condone any act of hooliganism, but does the Home Secretary accept that the large majority of people protesting on Thursday did so peacefully and lawfully? In my view, they had every justification for protesting. Will she let us know as quickly as possible why apparently-I repeat, apparently-attempts were made to prevent Alfie Meadows from being admitted to the hospital where he was later operated on for some three hours?

Theresa May: In response to the latter question, I can say, as I did in my statement, that the IPCC is investigating what happened to Alfie Meadows, who had serious head injuries. It is not appropriate for me to comment on that matter; it is for the IPCC to investigate it fully and properly. Of course a large number of people came to protest peacefully on Thursday. However, unlike in the previous demonstrations, the violent protesters were not a small minority-there was a significant number of violent demonstrators.

Charlie Elphicke: Given that we saw a feral mob intent on riot and desecrating important national symbols such as the Cenotaph, the statue of Churchill and the Supreme Court, will the Home Secretary praise in particular the restraint shown by the police in the face of such provocation and attacks from protesters?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The police very bravely faced significant provocation last Thursday, and they did indeed exercise restraint. A number of incidents are being investigated, but overall the police showed restraint, ensuring that Parliament was able to conduct its business and that people could access this place for the right and proper democratic debate that we wanted to take place.

Malcolm Wicks: I support the Home Secretary's condemnation of violence, and I recognise the no win situation the police find themselves in in such demonstrations, but what is her view of kettling, including of children? It is becoming more common, and when it goes on for hour after hour, does it not become a form of open air imprisonment that has nothing to do with the right of peaceful protest in our country?

Theresa May: The whole issue of kettling has been looked at previously. It has been supported as an appropriate technique that is available to the police to use. The operational decision on when it is right to use kettling-or not-must be left to the police. It is not for us as politicians to say, on any one occasion, whether it is appropriate to use kettling, but overall as a tactic it is appropriate.

Robert Halfon: My constituents will be incredibly concerned about reports that suggest that some agitators came from overseas countries, such as Latvia and Germany. If that is the case, what steps will my right hon. Friend take to ensure that such agitators do not come from overseas in future?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend is trying to tempt me down a road that it is not necessarily appropriate for me to go down on this occasion. All I will say is that it is important that we look at the make-up of the crowd. As I said in my statement, sadly what we saw was a significant number of people who came not to protest peacefully but to perpetrate and encourage violence and criminal damage.

David Lammy: Is not the point of a kettle that it brings things to the boil? Is the Home Secretary comfortable that largely because of her Government's decisions on the education maintenance allowance, minors and other young people were caught up in the kettle? She says that those who remained peaceful and wished to leave Whitehall were able to do so, but can she confirm that the IPCC is investigating a number of complaints about young people not being able to leave?

Theresa May: The police did ensure that it was possible for peaceful protesters to leave Parliament square on Thursday. They put those arrangements in place, and a significant number of protesters took advantage of that and were allowed to leave by the police.

Duncan Hames: What support can the police give to the organisers of public protests to help them to ensure that their protests are not infiltrated by malevolent forces who wish only to exploit and not enhance their cause?

Theresa May: My hon. Friend raises an important point about those who organise such demonstrations and who want to be able to carry out peaceful protest, so that their cause is not damaged by any violence that takes place. The police do engage with protesters: they were speaking with the National Union of Students and the University of London Union before last Thursday's demonstration, making every effort to work with them on what would be appropriate to enable the peaceful protest to take place. However, I was very concerned when I saw one of the stewards of last Thursday's event interviewed on the BBC. When asked whether he would condemn the violence of the protesters, he said no, he would not. It does not help if organisations only appear to want to encourage peaceful protest.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Home Secretary aware that these protests had echoes of the poll tax demonstrations from years ago? As then, we now have a nasty, right-wing Government bringing in violent policies that people have only one way to react to-on the streets. And they will do it again, so long as this right-wing Government, with the Liberals as their allies, bring those policies in.

Theresa May: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman. I had thought that perhaps in his many years in this House, he had mellowed slightly in his approach. I am very sorry that he spoke about violence but did not seek to condemn those who undertook violent protest, criminal damage and damage to individuals, including police officers.

Michael Ellis: Will my right hon. Friend commend the officers, particularly those of the royalty protection branch, for their admirable and extraordinary restraint when dealing with the disgraceful attack on the Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall, and recognise that the vast majority of protection officers in other countries around the world might well have resorted to deadly force in similar circumstances?

Theresa May: I am happy to join my hon. Friend in commending the restraint shown by the royal protection officers, as did the Metropolitan Police Commissioner on Friday morning in his radio interview. It was important that the officers concentrated on getting His Royal Highness and the Duchess of Cornwall to their venue, which they did admirably and in a short space of time. They did indeed respond with restraint.

Jeremy Corbyn: I met a number of students last Thursday evening who were shocked and distressed. They were entirely peaceable people, but they had been held for seven hours against their will on the streets of this capital city and they were terrified when horses charged into them while they were taking part in a demonstration to raise their legitimate concerns. Will the Home Secretary have a serious discussion with the Metropolitan Police Commissioner about the use of kettling tactics and corralling people against their will when they wish only to demonstrate peacefully against what they see as-and I agree with them-the monstrous imposition of a fees increase.

Theresa May: I am afraid that the picture of what happened last Thursday as set out by the hon. Gentleman is somewhat different from what happened. Yes, there were peaceful protesters, and the police were making sure that those protesters were able to leave the Parliament Square area if they wished to do so. I hoped that the hon. Gentleman would join me in condemning the violence shown by the significant number of people who came to the demonstration intent on creating criminal damage, trouble and mayhem. I hope he will also condemn the appalling behaviour of the individual who sought to desecrate the Cenotaph.

Christopher Pincher: I agree with my right hon. Friend that the only people responsible for the violence were the thugs who committed it. I too commend the actions of the police, which I saw from my office window. Will she give us some idea of when the substantive report into the violence will be brought forward and acted upon, because after three marches and three occasions of increasing violence, surely something needs to be done?

Theresa May: Of course the Metropolitan police look at what happens in any demonstration, decide whether they need to use different tactics and look to see what lessons can be learned from the previous one. That is entirely right and proper, but decisions about the tactics that will be used for any demonstration are operational matters for the Metropolitan police.

Jack Dromey: The Home Secretary was reported yesterday as appearing to contemplate the use of water cannon; today, she appears to be ruling out the use of water cannon. Will she clarify this beyond any doubt: will she rule out the use of water cannon on British streets?

Theresa May: I made it clear in my earlier comments that I do not think anybody wants water cannon used on British streets. What I said in the interview yesterday is that the Metropolitan police will of course look at the range of tactics available to them to consider whether there is any tactic not yet used that they might wish to use. Currently, as I speak here today, the legal position is that water cannon are not approved for use on the streets of England and Wales. If the hon. Gentleman had listened carefully to my interview yesterday, he would have heard me make the point that we have a different approach to policing in this country from what is seen in many continental countries. I have reiterated that view in my statement today and in further responses to the questions put to me. In Britain, we police by consent, which depends on the link of trust between the police and the public-and long may that continue.

Andrew Stephenson: Given what some student leaders have said since the scenes that we saw on Thursday-many are still refusing to condemn the violence-does the Home Secretary expect similar violent protests in the coming weeks? Will she assure us that everything possible is being done to ensure that the scenes that we saw on Thursday are not repeated?

Theresa May: There have been a number of suggestions that further demonstrations will take place, and I expect the police to continue to deal with such demonstrations robustly.

Hywel Francis: The Home Secretary will be aware that the Association of Chief Police Officers has excellent guidelines on kettling or containment. Does she agree that in the future-never mind what has happened in the past-it would be good to focus specifically on communication between the organisers of demonstrations and the police?

Theresa May: Yes, there are guidelines on the use of kettling, when it is appropriate and how it should be undertaken. As for communications between the police and organisers, one of the features of the demonstrations that have taken place so far is that although the police have taken great pains to communicate with the organisers, sadly the organisers have then not appeared to be able to maintain the demonstration as originally suggested. We have seen a number of violent people doing what they want to do, which is to create criminal damage and violence at the heart of those demonstrations, and that is something that we must all condemn. Peaceful protest is appropriate, and we want to enable it to happen, but violent protest is not.

Kerry McCarthy: I accept that the police had a very difficult job to do last Thursday, but last night when I met students at the university of the West of England who had been in London to carry out a lawful and peaceful protest, I was disturbed to hear their accounts of how they felt the police had overstepped the mark, to see video footage of horses charging into protesters, and told of injuries from truncheons and so on. Can the Home Secretary assure me that if I write to her giving personal accounts from people who were there on Thursday, she will treat their complaints seriously?

Theresa May: Of course the hon. Lady is free to write to me about those matters. There is a formal process which is appropriate if individuals wish to make complaints about the way the police have treated them, and a number of complaints are currently being investigated. However, let me point out to the hon. Lady and to any other Members who may agree with her that we should not focus on how the police responded. They should be accountable and complaints should be investigated, but we must ensure that we focus on those whose responsibility it was for violence to occur in the first place. That was not the police; it was the protesters.

Chris Bryant: I, too, wholeheartedly condemn the deliberate violence-mongering that ruined what would otherwise have been a perfectly admirable peaceful protest last Thursday, but the Home Secretary seems to be equivocating a bit on the question of water cannon. She said that they were not legal yet, as if she was implying that she might be persuaded to change her mind. As one who experienced water cannon in Chile in the 1980s, I can assure her that they are entirely indiscriminate, can lead to panic among those who are protesting, and can cause serious injury. The last time they were used in Stuttgart was a couple of months ago, when two people were blinded by them. Will the Home Secretary therefore rule out giving permission for the use of water cannon in this country?

Theresa May: I have made the position absolutely clear to the hon. Gentleman and others. I do not think that any of us want to see water cannon being used on the streets of England and Wales. I have said that several times in response to questions on my statement, and I think that the hon. Gentleman should have listened to my earlier answers.

Mr Speaker: I thank the Home Secretary and all colleagues for their co-operation. I now call the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government to make his statement.

Local Government Finance

Eric Pickles: With permission, Mr Speaker, I should like to make a statement on finance for English local authorities for 2011 to 2013.
	The spending review set out how the Government would tackle the catastrophic levels of public debt by delivering necessary reductions in public spending to accelerate deficit reduction and put the public finances back on a sustainable footing. This has involved difficult, but essential and responsible, decisions. Every part of the public sector needs to do its bit to help to reduce the highest deficit in the UK's peacetime history and the rapidly rising national debt that this Government have inherited.
	Last year, the Government borrowed one pound in every four they spent. That threatened our economic credibility. In contrast, our plans to eliminate the current structural deficit over five years have won the backing of the International Monetary Fund, kept our credit rating steady and held interest rates down. The Office for Budget Responsibility's forecast confirms we are taking the right steps. Its message is that Britain's recovery is on track.
	I have sought to achieve a fair and sustainable settlement for local government by listening to what the local government community has asked for. It will be a progressive settlement that is fair between different parts of the country. First, we have focused on the most vulnerable communities with significant social challenges. These are often the areas that are most reliant on Government grant, so equal grant reductions would leave the poorest places worst off. We have insulated them by giving more weight to the levels of need within different areas and less weight to per capita distributions. We have also grouped councils into four bands, reflecting their dependence on central Government. More dependent places will therefore see proportionally lower falls than more self-sufficient places.
	Secondly, we have listened to concerns about the front-loading of the reductions. The Local Government Association asked me to focus on local government total spending, including not just grants but income from council tax and NHS funding to support social care and benefit health. It said that reductions in spending should be limited to 8%. As far as possible, I have given the LGA what it asked for. I have made sure that no authority will face more than an 8.9% reduction in spending power in either 2011-12 or 2012-13. In fact, the average reduction in spending power for 2011-12 is 4.4%. To fund this, I have transferred an extra £30 million of my Department's budget to local government for 2011-12. I have also provided a grant of £85 million for 2011-12 and £14 million for 2012-13 to fund councils who would otherwise have seen sharper falls.
	The spending review also announced that the Government will protect the public from excessive council tax rises. We have set aside £650 million so every council can freeze council tax next year without hitting local services. We will provide councils that freeze council tax with the equivalent of a 2.5% increase in funding instead. That will provide real help to hard-working families and people on fixed incomes, such as pensioners. The Government also want to ensure that council tax payers are protected against authorities that reject the offer and impose excessive council tax rises. We will introduce powers for residents to veto excessive council tax increases through a local referendum. In the meantime, the Government will take capping action against councils that propose excessive rises.
	When the House debates the final local government finance report next year, I will set out the capping principles. I will also publish shortly details of the figures that will be used to compare authorities' budgets between years, should capping be necessary. The previous Government had planned to cap the police authorities of Greater Manchester and Nottinghamshire after they set excessive increases in 2010-11. Subject to challenge, we will ensure that, should they decide not to freeze the council tax, neither can impose an increase of over 2.5% in 2011-12.
	This settlement also supports the Government's commitment to adult social care, providing councils with sufficient resources to protect people's access to care and to deliver improved quality of outcome. That includes £150 million of NHS funding in 2011-12 to support social care services, promoting integrated working between primary care trusts and local authorities and benefiting the health system. The settlement directs more formula grant to authorities that deliver social care.
	Despite all the actions we have taken, I recognise that local government still faces significant challenges. The vast majority of councils have been making sensible plans to address them. I support that and I am restoring real power to councils, ensuring that Whitehall interference, red tape and the burdens of inspection and regulations are gone. The Localism Bill, published today, will deliver a new democratic settlement to local councils, overturning decades of central Government control.
	For too long, councils have been barred from using their initiative and creativity to improve services. The limited "power of well-being" acted as an obstacle to cost savings, such as mutual insurance companies. Today's Bill will fundamentally change councils' freedom to act in the interest of their local communities through a new general power of competence. That will give councils the legal reassurance and confidence they need to innovate, drive down costs and deliver more effective services. I am also giving councils greater control over their budgets.
	With very few exceptions, we have ended grant ring-fencing so that councils can decide for themselves how their money is spent. We will also allow them to borrow against future business rates receipts. Councils now have the freedom and responsibility to concentrate on what residents want: protecting front-line services. To support them, I have set aside £2 million to help councils to modernise and reduce back-office costs.
	Councils can protect front-line services by sharing services and back-office functions, improving procurement to get more for less, bringing increasing senior pay under control and using transparency to cut waste. Proactive councils are already taking the opportunity radically to rethink and transform their services. There are also substantial incentives available for councils to invest in long-term projects, which include the new homes bonus and £1.4 billion of regional growth funds over three years-a fund that goes well beyond the working neighbourhoods fund. There will now be a statutory consultation on the settlement for 2011-12 and I look forward to hearing representations from councils.
	Finally, this is a transitional settlement, using an inherited system. That is why I have set out details only for the next two years to strike a balance between the need to help councils plan and the need to reform the system. This system, based on redistributing business rates, makes councils heavily reliant on handouts from central Government-some depend on us for up to 75% of their spending power. It is part of the trend that has led to some areas of the country becoming completely dependent on the public sector. It makes planning difficult, weakens local accountability and stifles local innovation. There is no incentive for councils to invest in their local economy as they will see most of the proceeds disappear.
	That is why I have set up a review of business rates with the intention that, in future, local government will be able to keep more of what it collects. Ultimately, the councils that invest and support the local economy will be able better to use the finances themselves. The local government resource review will begin in the new year. I commend the statement to the House.

Caroline Flint: I thank the Secretary of State for giving us 40 minutes' advance notice of his statement and its 11 attachments. Obviously, we will have to look very carefully at the detail of today's settlement because, as we all know, the devil is in the detail. I welcome his acknowledgement of the concerns about front loading caused by the comprehensive spending review profile. Many have made that case, although even today the Minister for Housing and Local Government seemed to deny, on a programme that we both appeared on, that front loading would be a problem. The fact is that it still exists, even after the Secretary of State's statement, but it is a shame that it was not uppermost in his mind when he raced to the front of the queue to settle his Department's cuts with the Chancellor.
	At first sight, there is little else to be thankful for, because today's announcement includes heavily front-loaded cuts to local government that are not only damaging but deeply cynical. The Secretary of State comes to the House with his statement in one hand and a localism shovel in the other, because he thinks that today is a good day to bury bad news. We have been inundated with empty rhetoric about localism, three written ministerial statements on localism, the publication and First Reading of the long-awaited and much-delayed Localism Bill and a stream of articles and briefings over the weekend, including appearances in which he has waxed lyrical about devolving power to local government. All those promises ring hollow when at the same time he imposes unprecedented cuts on town halls the length and breadth of the country. He is offering councils devolution while holding a gun to their head.
	Today we find out what the Government really plan to devolve to local councils: the most devastating cuts in funding for a generation and the blame for difficult decisions. What is worse, the Secretary of State does this with barely disguised relish and to the cheers of his Back Benchers. Time and again, he has spoken of the virtues of local government. He promises to free local councils from the shackles of Whitehall and pledges to give them extra freedoms and powers, but if he really believes in local government why has he imposed cuts on town halls up and down the country bigger than those for almost every Whitehall Department? Does he really believe that the regional growth fund, which has been sliced enormously, can make up for the losses that local government is facing? Why has he still front loaded the cuts so that the heaviest reductions will fall in the first two years and why has he refused to give councils the help and flexibility they need to meet the cost of redundancy payments? I think that he meant to refer to £200 million to help with costs rather than £2 million, which is what he said. Even so, the Local Government Association is asking for £2 billion-worth of flexibility to handle the redundancy payments that will have to be faced across England.
	What further assurances can the Secretary of State give that the poorest councils will not bear the heaviest burden? Like others, I was intrigued when he talked about the spending power of local authorities. Will he explain in more detail how he has worked out each council's total spending power to enable him to claim that no authority will face more than an 8.9% reduction in spending power from 2011 to 2013? Why does he not talk about the revenue support grant and the cuts to that rather than mixing in council tax revenues and spending provided by the NHS? For someone with so much to say about town hall communications, bin collections and Christmas celebrations, and given that barely a speech passes without being spiced up by a reference to curries, the Secretary of State has so little say about the impact of these cuts. Local councils, the people whom they employ and the communities they serve deserve better than that, as do their partners in the big society. Today's settlement means that far from community groups and the voluntary sector being liberated to do more, as the Government promise, they might be so hampered that they end up doing much less.
	Be in no doubt: these cuts will hit front-line services and cause massive job losses in the public and private sectors. For all Ministers' traipsing around the TV studios pretending that savings of this magnitude can be made by efficiency drives and sharing back-room functions alone, the reality is very different-and everybody knows it. Even Baroness Eaton, a Conservative peer and the chair of the Local Government Association has admitted:
	"These cuts will hurt. We know this means there will be fewer libraries, more potholes going unrepaired, parks shutting earlier and youth clubs closing."
	This is not about whether or not local government funding should be reduced. Across the House, we all accept that the deficit needs reducing-[Hon. Members: "Ah!"] Yes, and that would have meant cuts to local government funding whoever won the election-I made that clear in last week's debate and I say it again today-but the Government have made their choice. They have chosen to impose cuts on local government harder and faster than in almost any Whitehall Department. There is nothing localist about that. We on the Labour Benches are in favour of empowering local councils and giving people a greater say in the way they run their local communities and in how services are provided, but if the Secretary of State thinks that he can get away with using localism as a smokescreen for unprecedented cuts to local government which still, even after today's statement, fall heaviest in the first two years, he had better think again.
	The Secretary of State announced today the dawn of a new constitutional settlement. I therefore look forward to his confirmation that, in line with convention, the Localism Bill will be considered in Committee on the Floor of the House.
	In last week's Opposition day debate I set the Secretary of State three challenges: to spread the cuts more evenly over four years; to protects jobs and front-line services by ensuring that councils have sufficient capitalisation funds to meet the cost of redundancy payments; and to ensure that the burden of cuts is spread fairly around the country and between our communities. Despite today's assurances, he has not convinced us that his localism is any more than a cover for cuts. People up and down the country will pay the price for his failure.

Eric Pickles: Well, so much for gratitude. I do not want to start up the hunting debate again, but we have shot the right hon. Lady's fox and she has been less than gracious. The first thing we did was to change relative needs level from 73% to 83%. Then we introduced banded floors, and then we introduced a special damping for authorities more dependent on grant than others. This settlement-this formula-is more progressive, protecting vulnerable communities, than anything that the Labour party has produced.
	As for the right hon. Lady saying, "What are these figures?", it is not so long ago that the hon. Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) was demanding this way of measurement-that we should not just take basic grant and that we should include the question of council tax and money coming from other grants and from the national health service which PCTs are spending. It is good to see along the Front Bench my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary, who has done so much to ensure that local government is getting additional powers in this area.
	We have delivered everything that the Opposition identified. We have protected the most vulnerable. The right hon. Lady seemed to start saying that we had not done too bad a job, but found that she had notes prepared earlier condemning us.

Henry Smith: I very much welcome this truly progressive statement. I congratulate my local authorities in Crawley and West Sussex on the significant efficiency savings that they have already made. Can the Secretary of State confirm that, as we develop the funding formula, it will become more transparent?

Eric Pickles: I can confirm to my hon. Friend that that will be the case. The present formula is very difficult to operate. In developing it I had worries with regard to balancing need against sparsity. It is always difficult to do that. We had to move extra money across from my Department in order to protect certain vulnerable districts that are not benefiting from the increase in spending in respect of adult social care and the extra help being offered in conjunction with PCTs.

Simon Danczuk: Although the Secretary of State clearly has the stomach for these terrible cuts, that is not the case in local government. In Rochdale, the Liberal-Conservative coalition council has collapsed under the weight of the Government's unfair front-loaded cuts. Today the eighth Lib Dem councillor resigned from their party. Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Rochdale's Labour councillors, who have put lead in their pencils and taken minority control to create a compassionate council that cares about local people?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman had clearly prepared his speech before I delivered my statement. How can 8.9% extra help to Rochdale-to his council-and the following year a 4.3% drop in spending power be regarded as front loading? We have gone out of our way to help Rochdale. We have offered more help than the Labour party would have done. The hon. Gentleman's council would be a lot worse off if we had applied Labour's formula. This is a progressive settlement which protects the vulnerable, and the hon. Gentleman does himself no good by not recognising that fact.

Andrew Percy: I welcome the statement and, in particular, the announcement of a general power of competence for local councils. Will that or a similar power extend to parish councils? There is a great opportunity for parish councils to help local councils, as we did in my village this weekend with snow removal. There is a great opportunity also for parish councils, working with their district councils, to help save money, so will that power extend to the parishes?

Eric Pickles: Increasingly, we will encourage more parish councils to be formed. We believe that the neighbourhood is the natural point to which funding should go for local authorities, and I am very happy to confirm to my hon. Friend that, indeed, parish councils will get a general power of competence. Basically, the chain will turn on its head: the normal presumption is that councils have to find a law to take a particular action; now, they will have to find a law that prevents them from doing so. I think that that will allow for greater flexibility.

David Blunkett: I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman, whom I must describe as Eric through the looking glass, on being able to persuade his minority coalition partners that a scorched earth policy is actually fair and progressive. This year, the national business rate will raise just over £22 billion. Is it not the case that, by 2014-15, the amount that central Government distribute will equal the business rate and run very close to breaking the current law, whereby they are required to distribute the whole grant to English local government?

Eric Pickles: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for the allusion. He seems to be vying for the title of the Red Queen: judgment first, judgment first, before he hears the facts.

David Blunkett: Better than the White Rabbit.

Eric Pickles: Before the right hon. Gentleman disappears down his own rabbit hole, I will continue.
	There is a theoretical surplus in 2013-14, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that we have an obligation to distribute the national non-domestic rate to authorities. The figure of £3 billion is overstated, because the Office for Budget Responsibility has not taken into account the number of grants that we have rolled into the block grant. We have done that because of its distributive effect, and by 2013-14 we hope that a new system of local government finance will be in place.

Anne McIntosh: This announcement is the other side of the coin for flood defence spending. Will my right hon. Friend explain what proportions of the budget, with the removal of ring fencing, will be spent on capital expenditure and on maintenance? Will he consult on the possibility, if councils find themselves short of money, of water companies adopting and maintaining new sustainable drainage systems?

Eric Pickles: The latter point will of course be a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. On the capital programme, the various Departments will make their usual announcements in the reasonably near future, so that local authorities have an indication of their capital programmes.

Joan Ruddock: The Secretary of State speaks of fair, sustainable and progressive proposals, but he must be using a different dictionary from the one on my bookcase, because his proposals will devastate my deprived constituency and borough of Lewisham. Given that 40% of the budget is spent on elderly and children's care, can he not see that the proposals will mean draconian cuts in everything else? Will he not admit that his real agenda is shrinking the state and shifting the blame?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Lady will be pleased to know that Lewisham faces a drop in spending of 6.5% this year and 4.3% the following year. That does not strike me as draconian by any stretch of the imagination. She has made her reputation on shroud waving in this Chamber, but she should be addressing the needs of the people of Lewisham, who will continue to receive a high level of support from the central state to ensure reasonable provision in Lewisham.

Stephen Gilbert: Does the Secretary of State agree that the ending of ring fencing announced today and the introduction of the Localism Bill mark an historic turning point for local government in our country? After 13 years of the previous Government micro-managing every part of local government, today marks the day when the coalition takes Whitehall out of the town hall.

Eric Pickles: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I am delighted that the reductions in Cornwall will be 3.9% next year and 2.2% the following year. He is entirely correct. No matter what the Opposition say, we are passing real, substantial powers to local authorities. We have reduced the number ring-fenced from 90 to about 10. The only substantial ones to note are the school grant and the national health service grant that starts in 2013. We have given local authorities a great deal of leeway and discretion. Given that the Local Government Association said that it would be perfectly capable of dealing with a 9% reduction in spending and that the overwhelming majority of councils are well below 8%, I am very surprised-as, no doubt, he is-that there is not more celebration across the Chamber.

Louise Ellman: Liverpool is the most deprived city in the country and 40% of 16 to 18-year-olds there are about to lose all their education maintenance allowances. Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much Liverpool will lose in cash terms, including the cuts already made this year?

Eric Pickles: I made a very pleasant visit to Liverpool earlier this year and had the opportunity to meet and spend time with Councillor Joe Anderson. He told me that he felt that his chief executive and senior staff were overpaid. I commend to the hon. Lady the very brave decision that he has taken today to reduce his top management of 74 by 48. By just removing 48 staff and those among the top officers taking pay cuts, £4.25 million has been saved. That is an indication of the determination of Liverpool. I am delighted to tell her that giving a new damping grant to Liverpool has meant that we have saved an extra £15 million on top of that.

Rory Stewart: Given the unique problems faced by rural areas and the incredible creativity and energy with which the Eden valley and other communities are overcoming their problems, will the Secretary of State please reassure us about the impact that these decisions will have on rural communities?

Eric Pickles: One of the great difficulties that I have alluded to is trying to balance relative need with sparsity, which is extremely difficult. I was very keen to pass the additional money available for adult social care into those communities. That has meant that some district councils-by their nature, because they are not social services departments-have faced a quite considerable reduction. That is why we have moved additional money across from my Department to ensure that those communities are not put at a disadvantage. I admit to my hon. Friend that this is a stop-gap, but I hope that within two years we will be producing a much fairer, much more transparent and much more honest policy. We are operating on the basis of an inherited policy, but frankly it was not worth the candle to dismantle it just for two years.

Bob Ainsworth: As Coventry council declares hundreds of redundancies, how does the Secretary of State justify his denials that he is relishing wielding the axe, given that he was one of the first Secretaries of State to settle with the Treasury at one of the highest levels of cuts? How does he claim to be concerned about the most deprived communities given the cuts that he made to the area-based grants, which fall almost entirely on those councils with the most deprived areas within their jurisdictions?

Eric Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman is a very distinguished Member of the House, and he should know not to believe everything he sees in the newspapers. I settled with the Chancellor three days-I think-before the final settlement. I have no idea why the stories that I was an early settler came out. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will be delighted that Coventry faces a cut in its spending of 5.9%, and 3.9% the following year. The substantive point is this. I listened to the chief executive of Coventry council this morning on the radio, and given what the council has been doing in terms of greater efficiency and amalgamating services, what we have been able to offer through this process has meant that Coventry has received considerable protection. The levels of cuts are in single figures. This time last week, Opposition Members told us that we were going to see reductions in spending of 20% or 30%. We were told it was going to be Armageddon, so they would have settled for 5.9%.

Heather Wheeler: While I congratulate the Secretary of State on looking after the most vulnerable people in society, may I press him to give some comfort to middle England and the district councils, particularly given the situation that we face over disabled facility grant and other issues that are coming along, especially in south Derbyshire?

Eric Pickles: We are all paying a great deal of attention to the squeezed middle, not least those on the Opposition Benches. One of the consequences of our decision to put substantial moneys into adult social care, as well as the move-across on the bus grant, is that the district councils, by proportion, received a much smaller amount. That is why we put in some additional sums of money in order to protect them. I think that middle England is safe with the coalition.

Clive Betts: The Secretary of State is right that local government was fearful of the up-front nature of the cuts, which is still there, and the disparities in the cuts, particularly in that they most adversely affected those authorities with the highest level of grant. Will he therefore produce figures comparing not only grant settlements year on year but total spending levels, including council tax, authority by authority? Although he says that the highest cuts in total spending power reduction will be 9%, if the average is 4.4%, does that not mean that some authorities will get no cuts at all, or even perhaps a small increase?

Eric Pickles: I believe that Dorset gets a 0.1% increase in its financing; I hope that it will not go mad and squander that additional sum of money. I do not think that any place in England is seeing an increase, when the fact that district councils are receiving a considerably greater reduction in their spending power is taken into consideration. The hon. Gentleman may have seen the bundle of documents that I have here, which include lots of things explaining exactly how we have done this. I commend to him the straightforward calculation on pages 55 to 56, which explains precisely and exactly how the figures have been worked out.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I remind hon. Members that questions are supposed to be short. If the answers could be short as well, that would be helpful, because many hon. Members still wish to participate.

Christopher Pincher: Will my right hon. Friend commend Lichfield district council and Tamworth borough council on leading the way by sharing front-of-house and back-office services to save council tax payers' money? Will he also congratulate Tamworth borough council on its announcement that it is freezing council tax? It is the first time that that has happened in Tamworth in a generation. Does that not demonstrate that Conservative councils offer value-for-money services-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I have only just said to the House that there should be short questions. That does not mean three short questions or four short questions. The Secretary of State will answer one of those questions.

Eric Pickles: In the interests of brevity, I congratulate Tamworth. That is the kind of Tamworth declaration that I would expect.

Hazel Blears: The Secretary of State says that he is being generous in putting £30 million of his departmental budget into local government. For a big man, that is pretty small beer. Does he accept the truth that the abolition of area-based grant means that the poorest places, especially in the north, will be worse off? In Salford, £3 million of area-based grant goes into tackling crime and disorder.

Eric Pickles: For Salford, the reduction in spending power will be 8.5% next year and 3.9% the following year. There is a misunderstanding from the right hon. Lady, although I do not mean that disrespectfully. The way to protect the poorest is to put money into the block grant, because that is the most distributive grant. That point is like the argument about the level of capitalisation. The more money that goes into the block grant, the more that vulnerable communities are protected.

Justin Tomlinson: I support powers to veto excessive council tax rates, especially for those on fixed incomes. That will be welcomed in my constituency, where under the former Labour-controlled council, council tax rates rocketed by 42% in just three years. To protect residents, what levels can we expect for future capping rates?

Eric Pickles: Of course, I hope that it will not be necessary to cap any authority this year. I rather hope that they will all accept the council tax freeze. The beauty of the measure is that once we get through this year, there will be no more capping. A reasonable level will be suggested, and after that, local people can decide. If local authorities make a reasonable case for an increase, so be it. The measure will act as a break against excessive council tax rises.

Nick Raynsford: The Secretary of State expresses surprise that we are not rejoicing at the settlement that he has announced. After 13 years of Labour Government announcements that always contained year-on-year real terms increases in grants to local authorities, this year the Secretary of State is announcing a settlement in which every local authority in England-with the possible exception of Dorset, although that point was not entirely clear-will suffer a loss. Is that not an indication of what the Tory in government means?

Eric Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman would not have dreamed of the relative needs level of 83%. Frankly, somebody as distinguished as he should not be asking, "Why are there cuts? What's happening?" We are in debt. The country is in a parlous state. Our level of sovereign debt is the highest in Europe. Had his party won the election, there would be real cuts in real terms in local government right now.

Anne Main: Under the previous Government, St Albans city and district council, like other councils, laboured under an enormously bureaucratic and interfering assessment regime, with its regulations and inspections. Will the localism policy and the cuts in red tape save local authorities money through not having to comply with expensive regulations?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. We have got rid of comprehensive area assessments and all the daft targets, which achieved absolutely nothing. The problem with them was that they cost serious money to put together. That money can now be applied to front-line services.

George Howarth: The Secretary of State will be aware that grant floors are important to boroughs such as Knowsley. Can he explain how his banded floors will operate, and will he indicate what percentage will apply in each of the four bands?

Eric Pickles: I am happy to do that. Let us deal first with social services authorities. In 2011-12, the floor will be 11.3% for the most dependent authorities, then 12.3%, 13.3% and 14.3% for the least dependent. In the case of shire districts, the floor will be 13.8% for the most dependent, then 14.8%, 15.8% and 16.8%, so there is a good 3% difference between the various bands. Of course, for an authority such as Knowsley there will be a transitional grant on top of that to get the levels down to 8.9%.

John Pugh: Will the Secretary of State clarify whether the new formula more adequately addresses the needs of authorities such as Sefton that have a disproportionate number of elderly residents?

Eric Pickles: Authorities with elderly residents, of course, will be some of the relatively big gainers because of the provision of adult social care. We want to put extra money into authorities with social services departments, and thanks to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health, we are looking at putting in serious money to deal with adult social care. I can recall standing at the Opposition Dispatch Box and asking for precisely the action that we have delivered today.

Stephen Timms: Given what the Secretary of State has said about fairness, why is it that from looking through the list of London borough grant changes, we see that the biggest losses in absolute and percentage terms are in the local authority areas where the level of disadvantage is the greatest?

Eric Pickles: I wish to make it absolutely clear that obviously, authorities that are more dependent on the grant will feel the effects of any reduction. We have moved the relative needs figure to 83%, and introduced the banded floors and the transitional grant, to protect those authorities. Had we not taken those decisions, and had we applied the system that the Labour party did, the effects on those communities would indeed have been great.

James Morris: I welcome the Secretary of State's announcement today. Is it not the case that across the country, there are lots of examples of local authorities working in partnership to reduce costs, sometimes across political divides? Will he outline how he can encourage local authorities along the line of more collaborative behaviour?

Eric Pickles: I am pleased to report that a number of authorities have gone some considerable way to find savings that can be made. We have already talked about Coventry, and Hammersmith and Fulham, Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster have started to join together to improve things. Birmingham has managed to save £130 million by outsourcing and Suffolk £40 million by divesting services. In the west midlands, asset rationalisation has achieved a £640 million saving. There is a very long list, which I shall not read out, but it is immensely important that authorities recognise that they can protect front-line services by shifting resources from the centre to the most vulnerable.

Andrew Gwynne: No matter what the Secretary of State says, the fact is that Tameside council is preparing for massive spending reductions over the next four years. Given that he has said that the changes are fair and sustainable, how does he square that situation for a borough ranked the 56th most deprived local authority area in England?

Eric Pickles: Tameside is enjoying considerable protection because of the three steps that I have announced, which I will not repeat. There are additional ways in which Tameside could improve its financial position, including through the regional development fund and such like. In fact, I have just been told that Tameside has a reduction in spending of 6.2%, which hardly figures with what the hon. Gentleman has just said, so I shall look forward to finding a nice thank-you note from him on the board tonight.

Andrew Griffiths: May I congratulate the Secretary of State on protecting adult social care and on listening to local councils about front-end loading? May I also commend to him the work of East Staffordshire borough council, which, by cutting expensive senior management, is protecting front-line jobs and services? Does he agree that average reductions of just 4.4% will mean that no council should be cutting front-line services?

Eric Pickles: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. This move goes hand in hand with increased transparency, because, by the end of January, every local authority will have to produce online all expenditure of more than £500 for close scrutiny by the electorate. If authorities are not cutting senior management but are instead taking out front-line services, it will not be me to whom they will be accountable but their electorate. I believe that this settlement will ensure that the trend towards a reduction in the centre and the protection of front-line services will be accelerated.

Liz Kendall: Will the Secretary of State tell the House how much money councils will be getting from the NHS to spend not on social care but on public health?

Eric Pickles: There are two funds, which add up to just a smidgen over £2 billion. The co-operation of the Department of Health, and the move in which local authorities with social services departments will now have an opportunity to influence the local health scene, represent a considerable change of which Joseph Chamberlain would have been proud. This will put local authorities in their rightful place of being able to co-ordinate a vital part of public health provision.

Julian Smith: May I ask the Secretary of State how he has dealt with the mess that he inherited from the previous Government around concessionary bus travel, which is so important for communities in North Yorkshire?

Eric Pickles: It has been a most dreadful experience, with the moves from the districts to the counties. One of the principal problems has been that a number of district authorities put in more money than the Government were actually giving them. At some point, some of that money was passported across to the counties, so that the districts registered a loss. I have tried to help by adopting a broad-brush approach of putting additional money into districts that are faced with a big loss in their spending power, but this is only a provisional assessment, and I will be listening carefully to what local authorities have to say on this issue.

Michael Dugher: Does the Secretary of State think that Mr David Shakespeare should remain as leader of the Conservative group on the Local Government Association after his offensive remark last week, which has been reported in today's newspapers, that constituents from poorer parts of the north-including areas such as my own-should
	"replace the Romanians in the cherry orchards"?

Eric Pickles: I was not aware of Councillor Shakespeare's remarks until the hon. Gentleman mentioned them. I will be seeing him first thing on Wednesday morning, and I shall ask him precisely what he meant by that.

Richard Graham: I welcome the Secretary of State's commitment to review business rates revenue. May I encourage him by saying that giving much of the business rates revenue back to local councils would reward proactive councils such as Gloucester city council, which sets out to attract inward investment, with a great source of new jobs?

Eric Pickles: I am very aware of my hon. Friend's constituency. I have visited it and know how proactive the council is in trying to bring in business. That is the secret: we need a system that rewards enterprise and initiative. Sadly, the current system tends to stifle both.

Richard Burden: The Secretary of State will know that, in the early part of the year, before the general election, Birmingham city council was already facing a major overspend. It claimed that it was not getting enough money from the then Labour Government, whereas one or two others said that the overspend was due to the council's mismanagement. Now that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to cut even more money from Birmingham city council, which does he think it was? Will he give the cash figure for the reductions in Birmingham? How does his statement relate to the forthcoming 20% cut in police numbers that his hon. Friends in the Home Office also propose for the west midlands?

Eric Pickles: I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that Birmingham faces a cut in its spending of 8.3%, and 4.3% for next year. I am also pleased to tell him that Birmingham has managed, through outsourcing, to reduce the gross level by £135 million, which is attractive. The hon. Gentleman represents a party that got us into the mess in the first place.

Ronnie Campbell: It was the banks.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman says, "Oh it's the banks". Big Government, with unsustained borrowing, got us into the mess. Labour Members must take their fair share of guilt and blame for that.

David Rutley: In Macclesfield, we are fortunate to have the wonderful Bollington leisure centre, which is run by the community for the community. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that success story clearly shows what local communities can do under the powers of the Localism Bill?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend clearly shows what localism can do, and the Localism Bill will ensure that more communities can do that. He will have noticed the scoffing on the Labour Benches about ordinary people banding together to protect a community facility. We have to emphasise that it does not have to be owned by the state to be used by the community. My hon. Friend clearly demonstrates the future; Labour Members demonstrate the past.

Luciana Berger: Earlier this year, Liverpool, the most deprived local authority, sustained the largest cut to its area-based grant of any core city. Will the Secretary of State now please answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs Ellman), and tell us how much he is cutting in cash terms from Liverpool's budget?

Eric Pickles: One of the reasons why the hon. Lady's constituents and the fine city of Liverpool face a problem is the working neighbourhoods fund, which the Labour party cut. It took that money away. We had to find a way to pay for that, which is why Liverpool will be restricted to a loss of 8.7% and 7.1%. In addition, on the tour to which I referred earlier, we ensured that the money for decent homes, which the previous Government abandoned, was provided for Liverpool. Liverpool is in a much stronger position now than it was when the Labour Government were in power.

Paul Uppal: While I welcome today's statement, particularly the measures that go towards tax incremental finance, will my right hon. Friend consider making them developer led, rather than local authority led? When the measures were trailblazed in the United States a couple of decades ago, most American cities and states found that regeneration was much more effective when they were developer rather than local authority led.

Eric Pickles: Obviously, as part of my job, I have met a number of developers. Those who have reasonably full books as far as housing is concerned are the ones who have got alongside a local community. Those developers are seen not as an occupying army bulldozing over the green belt, as was the case under the previous Labour Government. They work alongside local communities, clearly demonstrating the benefits that development can bring to a neighbourhood. I think that that is the future-developers, local government and local communities working in co-operation-and that is what the Localism Bill will deliver.

Ronnie Campbell: I met the chief executive of my local authority, Northumberland county council, last week. He tells me that he must save £100 million in the next two or three years. I hazard to say that that puts Northumberland county council in a right pickle. Is it not true that all that is happening is that services are being slashed and cut, people are being put on the dole, and the volunteers, if the Secretary of State can get them, must come in to replace them?

Eric Pickles: I have good news for the hon. Gentleman in terms of the loss of spending power, which is just 5.6% this year and 3.2% next year. As he is so cosy with his chief executive, he should ask him to take a pay cut to reduce central funding and the central office, to start sharing with other authorities, and instead of cutting the front line, to start cutting the feather-bedding.

Anne-Marie Morris: I am delighted that rurality and the age of the population will be taken into account, but may I have some reassurance that Devon will not find itself, as now, right at the bottom of the spending league tables for schools, with children having roughly £400 per head less spent on them because of the cost of transport, among other things?

Eric Pickles: My hon. Friend should be pleased to know that Devon faces a cut of 1.8% in its spending. One reason for that, as in other local authorities, is that social services are offered a degree of protection depending on the number of elderly people who have chosen to live there. However, some of the districts have to rely on the full amount in terms of the guarantee of no more than 8.9%.

Derek Twigg: The Secretary of State lost his train of thought this morning on the "Today" programme, which we can well understand given his disgraceful statement to the House this afternoon, but may I ask him a specific question? In the banding annex of the local government finance report, Dorset is in band 4, but he said that it will receive a slight increase in funding, or at least no cut. Will Halton, which is in band 1-the most deprived band-receive an increase in funding? It cannot be fair for somewhere in band 4 to get a better settlement than somewhere in band 1.

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman would be better to can the abuse and read the plain English guide to the settlement, which I commend to him because it demonstrates that what he just said is nonsense.

Charlie Elphicke: Does the Secretary of State share my sadness that such a tough local government settlement was necessitated because the previous Government shattered the public finances? Despite that, can he confirm that he has found £650 million to ensure that council tax is frozen next year in Dover and Deal and across England?

Eric Pickles: I am delighted to respond to my hon. Friend and to say that the council tax freeze will offer substantial protection to his constituents, who have worked hard and paid through the nose for council services over the years, seeing enormous increases under Labour. I am delighted that we can offer that additional money to freeze council tax.

Dennis Skinner: Is the Minister aware that Bolsover lost every single pit when the Tories were last in, and that every single textile factory was closed? It is in the bottom 50 of all constituencies in Britain in terms of deprivation, and there is something sinister in him deciding to cut Bolsover's grant by 20.3%. Why?

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. Bolsover will receive the full protection of the 8.9% cap in terms of its total spending power. That is a substantial difference- [Interruption.] He chunters, but we have opted for a measure regarded as desirable by the Local Government Association and his Front-Bench team a week ago. He should not blame the method just because it has not delivered the kind of bloody stumps that Labour Members wanted.

Bob Blackman: Local authorities all over the country will welcome the £200 million set aside to transform back-office functions and cut bureaucracy, but they will be concerned about how they can access the money. Will my right hon. Friend confirm the £200-million figure and state how local authorities can access it, so that we can see those reductions in bureaucracy and the transformation of the system?

Eric Pickles: They will gain access in precisely the same way they have gained access this year and in previous years: they will bid for an amount. No authority has ever received 100% so the £200 million will be apportioned on a percentage basis. I look forward to receiving applications from authorities throughout the country.

Denis MacShane: The verdict on this policy will be delivered next May and in May 2012, and I fear that the Secretary of State has just written the Götterdämmerung of Conservative councillors over the next four or five years. In Rotherham, there are literally hundreds of voluntary organisations relying on just a small helping hand from local government of a few hundred or few thousand pounds-not big money. May I ask him to pay particular attention to that to ensure that the voluntary sector does not go under as a result of the settlement?

Eric Pickles: Given that the reduction in spending for Rotherham is just 5%, it should be in a strong position to continue funding those groups. At a time when funding by Government grant is being reduced by 26%-14% in terms of total resource-it is beholden on local authorities not to salami-slice, but to restructure in order to achieve the advantages of back-office mergers. If Rotherham, which is a fine authority, does that, I am sure that those small grants will be protected.

Sarah Wollaston: Towns such as Dartmouth and Kingsbridge in my constituency are resisting the imposition of high and unwanted on-street parking charges by the county council that they see as a back-door form of revenue raising. Would my right hon. Friend encourage them to organise a local referendum?

Eric Pickles: It is always a bit of an inconvenience when the public make their position known-democracy is always a bit messy, but it is the best system we have. I cannot see any problem with local authorities facilitating such a referendum. The county council could also think about delegating that function to the local towns, so that they can organise these things. That is what happens in an awful lot of districts. My hon. Friend represents an attractive part of the world that many of us visit in slightly more clement times. However, car parking can be vital to a local economy so if she wants to start the referendum process, she has my full support.

Thomas Docherty: Further to the question from the shadow Secretary of State, given that the Secretary of State has repeatedly referred to the Localism Bill, in the House and on the radio this morning, as a new constitutional settlement, will he confirm that all stages will be taken on the Floor of the House?

Eric Pickles: Madam Deputy Speaker, you have asked for brevity, so I am happy to say no. A longer answer is: not a chance.

Gavin Barwell: May I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to reforming the fundamentally flawed system that he has inherited? However, does he agree that in the interim, councils such as mine-which, unlike most local authorities, saw real-terms cuts under the previous Labour Government-will have a particularly hard time?

Eric Pickles: I do recognise that, and I apologise to my hon. Friend. I would not have wanted to start from this position; I would have wanted a fairer, more reasonable system. However, I recognise that when we start to move money around the country and change things round, we have to put in floors and ceilings. That would have been more disruptive to local government than what we are doing, which we are at least doing on the basis that we are all in this together and that we have managed to protect the most vulnerable authorities.

Tristram Hunt: I have in my hand a rather thin document entitled "The thinking that underpins the Localism Bill". It is full of big words such as "liberalism", "community politics" and "big society", some of which the Deputy Prime Minister thinks he understands, but is all this not just hot air unless we see a real end to rate capping, an offer of local tax-raising powers in communities and the return of the business rate, which the Tories removed?

Eric Pickles: Except for the abuse, it sounds as if the hon. Gentleman might be ready to defect across the Chamber-and we will, of course, be ready. I would hardly describe the bundle of documents that we have issued as insubstantial, and frankly, I would commend to him the plain English guide to the settlement. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to make a representation to the Government about the reform of local government finance, he is most welcome to do so, because I will be absolutely frank: although he is no longer in his usual place, we are indebted to the right hon. Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr Raynsford), on whose hard work we will be building, but who received scant thanks from the previous Government.

Jason McCartney: My Colne Valley constituents, and in particular the Lingards community association, are excited about the Localism Bill, because it comes at a time when Labour-run Kirklees council is running a consultation costing tens of thousands of pounds-perhaps hundreds of thousands of pounds-in order to impose 28,000 new homes on our beautiful part of west Yorkshire. Will the Secretary of State join me in confirming that the Localism Bill will give powers to local people to decide where local houses will be built?

Dawn Primarolo: Order. We are not talking about the Localism Bill; we are talking about the settlement. As the hon. Gentleman did not ask about the settlement, we will move on.

Graham Jones: The Secretary of State said in his statement that there are "substantial incentives available for councils," and he mentioned the new homes bonus. May I ask him to ensure that demolitions will be netted off? I have 2,500 empty properties in my constituency, and if demolitions are included, there will be no new homes bonus for what is one of the most deprived constituencies. Another point that I want to touch on briefly-

Dawn Primarolo: Order. No, the hon. Gentleman will not raise another point. This has already gone on for a long time. I have been very patient, despite the fact that I have asked people for short questions and short answers.

Eric Pickles: We are talking about a regeneration fund, and we will indeed be offering part of the new homes bonus to get property that is empty after a period back into service.

Graham Jones: indicated  dissent .

Eric Pickles: The hon. Gentleman can shake his head, but we are responsible for the new homes bonus, so I tend to think that we probably know a little more about it than him, and he should be reasonably happy about that answer.

Emily Thornberry: Those responsible for providing adult social care who have heard the right hon. Gentleman predicting that the settlement will result in improved quality may think that he is telling a cruel joke. Is he confident that when ADASS-the Association of Directors of Adult Social Services-and the Local Government Association have studied the detail of the settlement, they will stop saying that there will be a shortfall in social care funding of billions of pounds?

Eric Pickles: I have to say that, not so long ago, I was at the Opposition Dispatch Box asking for this kind of money. We are talking about the only substantial increase in social care that this House has seen for a very long time. Frankly, mocking it is ridiculous. What the settlement will also do is increase co-operation and co-ordination between the health service and social services. That is something that we can all unite behind. There are many reasons-I suppose-to attack the settlement, but that is certainly not one of them.

Cancun Climate Change Conference

Christopher Huhne: I wish to make a statement on the outcome of the United Nations climate conference in Cancun. The House will remember the disappointment of last year's conference in Copenhagen, particularly its failure to agree a comprehensive and legally binding global treaty to supplement or replace the Kyoto protocol. Expectations for the Cancun conference were not high. After Copenhagen, it seemed as if the very principle of multilateralism was on trial. Our objectives, therefore, were modest. We aimed to demonstrate that the UN process was back on track. We also hoped to put in place some of the building blocks for an eventual global agreement and to rebuild momentum.
	I am delighted to say that our expectations were not just met, but exceeded. The conference agreed a series of linked decisions under both its tracks: the Kyoto protocol and the framework for reaching a new and more comprehensive agreement. Emissions reduction pledges made under the Copenhagen accord by developed and developing countries provided a valuable starting point and have been brought into the UN climate convention framework. We can now assess the overall policy pledges against the requirements of the science.
	These decisions provide a solid foundation for further work. For the first time, there is an international commitment to
	"deep cuts in global greenhouse gas emissions"
	to hold the increase in global average temperature below 2° C. This includes processes for adopting targets for peaking emissions as soon as possible and substantially reducing them by 2050.
	The conference also adopted decisions to develop systems for measuring, reporting and verifying emission reductions and actions in line with countries' commitments. This is essential to confidence in each other's actions. Developing countries will get access to low-carbon technology and help with adaptation to climate change. Market-based mechanisms will be considered to deliver effective reductions in emissions at least cost.
	Forestry was a key area. The conference agreed the framework for REDD plus-reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation-through which developing countries will be paid for keeping trees standing rather than logging them. The conference also made progress on rules for accounting for land use, land use change and forestry under the Kyoto protocol-an issue that was too difficult to be settled last year or at Kyoto and it has remained problematic ever since Kyoto.
	The conference also agreed the establishment of a green climate fund to support policies and activities in developing countries. The fund will be governed by a board with equal representation from developed and developing countries, and its finances will be managed in the first instance by the World Bank. A transitional committee will be established to design the institutions and operations of the fund, and we aim to see that make rapid progress. The conference also endorsed the commitment made by developed countries at Copenhagen to mobilise at least $100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing countries.
	The conference did not settle the future of the Kyoto protocol, nor did it adopt a new and more comprehensive treaty incorporating all countries. Neither outcome was realistically possible this year. Nevertheless, the agreements reached at Cancun represent a very significant step forward, particularly given that it seemed possible, even as late as last Thursday, that the conference would break up over precisely that issue. In the end, every country represented there, with the exception of Bolivia, felt able to support the outcomes.
	There remains much to do in the run-up to the 2011 climate conference in Durban. Given the outcome of Cancun, however, we can be far more confident than seemed possible just a few weeks ago. I am sure that the House will join me in congratulating the Government of Mexico, who were responsible for hosting and chairing the conference. The diplomatic skill, political courage and dogged determination of Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa and her team was responsible in very large part for its success. I was happy to be able to support her in co-chairing some of the negotiating groups that addressed the key issues.
	I also wish to pay tribute to the British team of negotiators. Even though our delegation was one of the smallest of those of the G8 countries, its members played a key role in many of the detailed negotiating groups, often leading for the EU. The climate diplomacy carried out by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in the year leading up to the conference clearly helped to lay the groundwork for a successful conclusion.
	Tackling climate change should transcend party politics. Britain has built a strong reputation internationally as a forward-looking country, and I thank my predecessor for his work in helping to achieve that. I was also pleased to be able to include in the UK delegation representatives of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly Government; it was the first time that that had happened.
	The coalition Government are determined to tackle the accelerating threat of climate change. We intend to demonstrate how a successful and prosperous low-carbon economy can be developed in the United Kingdom and the European Union, providing employment, exports and energy security and reducing emissions. The Energy Bill published last week and the consultation paper on electricity reform to be published later this week are key components of that, as is the adoption of a more ambitious target for reducing EU carbon emissions, and in that context I welcome the Spanish Government's recent declaration of support for a 30% reduction in EU emissions by 2020. We are pressing for an ambitious package of measures to be agreed by EU leaders in February next year to create the infrastructure and incentives for a faster move to a low-carbon economy within Europe.
	On the international front, we will build on the momentum achieved in Cancun. There is much still to be achieved, but we can now look forward with renewed optimism to the Durban conference next year. As the representative of one non-governmental organisation said,
	"Cancun may have saved the process but it did not yet save the climate".
	That is true, but in saving the process it represents a triumph for the spirit of international co-operation in tackling an international threat, and I am sure that the whole House will join me in welcoming that.

Meg Hillier: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement, and for early sight of it.
	International progress on climate change is of the utmost importance to us all. I am pleased that the Secretary of State has been able to attend the House in person today, so that we have a chance to question the Government on progress. We must acknowledge that the agreements made in Cancun are an important step in the right direction, and, on behalf of the Opposition, I join the right hon. Gentleman in congratulating the Mexican Government on creating an environment in which the nations of the world could agree a common statement. The statement of intent that has come out of Cancun builds on provisions made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) in Copenhagen last year, and we all hope that it will pave the way for more ambitious aims in South Africa next year.
	We welcome the establishment of a climate fund to help developing nations and commitments to take action on deforestation. We also welcome the acknowledgement of the gap between the promised emission cuts and the cuts that the science tell us are necessary. Does the Secretary of State believe that holding to an increase of below 2º is enough, given that scientists now say that an increase of between 2º and 4º is more likely?
	We have a long way to go, and, as the Secretary of State said, it is essential that the Government take a lead internationally. The right hon. Gentleman has already suggested that the European emission reduction target should be 30% by 2020, and he recently issued a statement with Germany and France pressing for such a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. Last week, the Committee on Climate Change reported in support of that aim. We are delighted that Spain is now on board. Will the Secretary of State tell us whether that is the extent of European Union support? He talks of pressing for measures in the EU, but will he say what practical steps he and the Government are taking in Europe? It might be said that the Government whom he represents are not of one mind when it comes to European relations, and we and the country need to know which point of view dominates the agenda. Will there really be progress by February?
	The Secretary of State was involved in discussions and conversations on Kyoto. Is he able to give the House a better sense of how those negotiations went, although they were not an outright success?
	The climate fund to assist developing nations is a welcome step, but we need assurances that funds will be in place. I welcome the Secretary of State's aim to see rapid progress on the part of the transitional committee. Can he give us a timetable for that progress? We have agreements, but we need to make sure that actions are taken or else the agreements will not be a foundation for change. Will the Secretary of State also give us further details on how finance will be secured, because the developing countries need this life-saving finance and they and their citizens cannot wait?
	Finally, we need to see leadership from Britain and Europe over the next 12 months, before countries meet again in South Africa. The Government must demonstrate leadership at home-here in the UK-and in Europe. We need the Government to commit to low-carbon growth and to show they can deliver before the opportunity has passed. Although we have had welcome announcements from the Government about implementing the green deal for householders, we do not know whether it will include a carbon reduction target. The right hon. Gentleman has also announced that he will go ahead with the green investment bank, but we do not know whether there will be enough money for it to do its job.
	We lack detail, therefore, yet we hear from businesses of the need for certainty, and households in fuel poverty need support and certainty too. We need flesh on the bones, and we need action between now and the next conference in South Africa.

Christopher Huhne: I thank the hon. Lady for her remarks, and I am delighted that there is, I think, a broad measure of political support from all three main parties in the House-and also from the nationalist parties, although none of their representatives are in the Chamber.
	The hon. Lady was absolutely right to mention the continuing gap between what the science tells us is necessary to reduce carbon emissions and the pledges that were made in the Copenhagen accord and that are now incorporated in the United Nations framework convention on climate change process. The gap will be assessed as part of the work that will be set in train as a result of the agreements in Cancun, and the UN environment programme report was a useful first step in pointing that out.
	I make no bones about the fact that we argued for, and would have liked, a clear commitment to a peaking of global emissions by 2020. The reality is that time is running out, and we need to be as precise as possible. We were not successful in achieving that clear and specific target, but we did have a clear commitment on peaking global emissions as early as possible and, obviously, we will move as quickly as we can towards achieving certainty.
	Yes, it was welcome that Spain joined us. We have been working quite hard on the 30% commitment, including through some meetings in Cancun. The Minister with responsibility for climate change, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), had meetings with the incoming presidency, and I had meetings with the Spanish Minister and other colleagues. Apart from Spain, France and Germany, we also now have a commitment from Denmark, and I am confident we will shortly have a commitment from Sweden as well, with all of them broadly in the same place. We must recognise that there are difficulties, especially for some of the economies still in transition, particularly Poland, which rely very much on lignite and hard coal, and we can try to deal with that. The process is under way and it will be important to address that in the new year.
	The negotiations on legal form were always going to be exceptionally difficult, and we knew we could not reach an outcome. For the UK, the key negotiating strategy was to make sure that we embodied in the agreement at Cancun a substantial amount of substance that we can then show at Durban next year. Hopefully, that will provide a real incentive to the progressive countries that want to do a deal and to some of the more reluctant countries, by showing that there is enough on the table to make them be a little more flexible than they have been thus far on, for example, whether there is a commitment in the Kyoto protocol or whether it is in the convention track-and, indeed, whether there is a legal commitment in the convention track, which I very much hope, so that we can, effectively, have two parallel sides.
	The hon. Lady asked about the finance. Fast-start finance is under way, and I am very pleased to be able to say that the Government have already disbursed the fast-start commitments we made for this financial year, and they have also been identified for the next financial year. Therefore, that money, which was agreed at Copenhagen, is being paid out. On the broader objective of $100 billion a year, we had an agreement to take note of the work that the advisory group on finance had done. That means that a lot of the work-for example, on bunker fuels and the potential for raising finance from aviation-can be taken into account and will go forward to Durban. I am cautiously optimistic that this advance will be crucial in getting the developing countries to sign up next year. This agreement, by the way, is the first time ever we have had an agreement by the developing countries to reduce their emissions compared with business as usual. That is quite a step forward, although it would obviously be nice to make it legally binding.
	I can assure the hon. Lady that there is no division in the Government on leadership in Europe. I know she is sceptical, but we have worked very closely with all parts of Government, particularly the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which has done an outstanding job. The team in Mexico City and the FCO more widely have done an outstanding job in helping us to prepare for these talks. It is an agreed part of our strategy as a Government that we recognise that our power as a nation to achieve our national objectives in the area of climate change is immeasurably greater the greater the extent to which we work through our European partners and manage to get them on board. That has been a key part of our approach to this issue.

Martin Horwood: May I echo my right hon. Friend's words about Patricia Espinosa, the chair of the summit, and indeed echo her words to me in Cancun, which commended my right hon. Friend personally for the positive role that he played? May I ask him to elaborate a little further on the issue that he was asked to tackle by her, namely the risk that in 2012 we may still see the planet unprotected by any continuing international agreement?

Christopher Huhne: We would obviously like, as my hon. Friend knows, to have a legally binding global agreement. That is our objective and I know that it is shared by those on both sides of the House. It is also shared by our European partners. We must not underestimate, however, the fact that although the convention track is not yet legally binding and does not have a commitment to a legal outcome-although a process was set up at Cancun whereby the convention track can discuss options for a legal outcome-the political commitment that it represents of incorporating the Copenhagen accord pledges within the UN framework and of having an agreement about the monitoring, reporting and verification of those pledges on the Kyoto side and international consultations, analysis and separate wording on the convention side is a significant step forward. We can have a lot of trust, and so can businesses, in the fact that that will underpin many of the investments that are being made.
	Let me add one other point that gives me cautious optimism. Some of the countries that have been regarded as difficult and sceptical about making international commitments were much better as regards our objectives at Cancun. I hesitate to single out any one in particular, but it is striking that China is making commitments through its latest five-year plan that, were they incorporated into an international agreement, would reach a long way towards where we would like China to be. The Indian Government-in particular, I pay tribute to Minister Ramesh-played an outstanding role in ensuring that we could get a verification system that will stand the test of time.
	This is a very significant agreement. We do not have a legally binding agreement yet. We would like that, but the political commitment and the substance of many of the decisions that have been taken are substantial.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Dawn Primarolo: Order. I would be grateful if the Secretary of State gave slightly shorter answers from now on. We have other important business and I am trying to ensure that every Member gets to put their one brief question to him.

Barry Gardiner: I recognise and welcome the Secretary of State's and the Government's commitment in this area, but given that the $100 billion a year by 2020 was announced last year and the money did not come and given that the $30 billion a year fast-start funding was announced last year and did not come, why should any developing nation believe that Mexico will be different and not only that the money will come but that it will be new money that will be evenly balanced, as it was supposed to be, between mitigation and adaptation?

Christopher Huhne: The fast-start finance is being paid.  [ Interruption. ] No, actually, a very substantial amount is coming through. If one looks at our European partners and the Dutch Government's website, which lists all the commitments that have already been made, including those outside Europe where countries have been stepping up to the plate, one sees there is a substantial measure of commitment. Things are not perfect and we are not all the way there but there is real money going through, and that can underpin real action early on to help developing countries in their efforts.
	On the $100 billion, there is much more flesh on the bones than there was a year ago. We have the report of the advisory group on climate change financing, which has done a lot of good technical work, and it has been taken note of here. We will make progress through the rest of the year.

Neil Carmichael: Obviously, we all welcome the progress that was made at Cancun and it is extremely good news that we are talking about processes being re-established. How does the Secretary of State think that China and India could be encouraged to co-operate more fully with the targets on carbon dioxide reduction?

Christopher Huhne: I have already mentioned the very positive efforts that Minister Ramesh and the Indian Government have made, as well as the way in which China is incorporating real targets into its domestic legislation, including ensuring that more than a fifth of the Chinese population is covered by low-carbon pilot areas. China is now in a serious, leading position in a number of low-carbon technologies. It is the world's largest producer of solar photovoltaics and I have had expressions of interest from Chinese firms about investing in the UK in offshore wind manufacturing facilities. Frankly, there is an enormous and very impressive level of commitment within China to serious investment in low-carbon products. I believe that will come forward in terms of an international commitment for the simple reason that those businesses need certainty about the international framework in exactly the same way as our businesses do, so we will get that change-indeed, we are getting it-in the Chinese Government's position.

Joan Walley: Given the importance of achieving some progress, however small, at Cancun, does the Secretary of State think that UN procedures are fit for purpose? In terms of the improvements that are needed, what role can Parliament take, given that the previous Government's Climate Change Act 2008 gives us an opportunity to take a leading role across the planet?

Christopher Huhne: I am very grateful for the hon. Lady's question-I say that with some feeling-because she has hit the nail on the head. The agreements that we reached at Cancun were, in my view, reached despite the process and procedures rather than because of them. Frankly, I have never been involved in any international or national set of procedures with so little in the way of standing orders and rules of procedure designed to guide the participants towards a result. As a member of the National Union of Journalists, I think that any union chapel would despair at the lack of procedures and the lack of ability to push things through. Reform of the UN is above my pay grade, but having participated in this process I strongly hope we can move on and get to a better process, because this is a serious issue that needs it.

Andrew George: I warmly congratulate my right hon. Friend. What proportion of the funds going into the green climate fund and of the $100 billion by 2020 in funding for developing countries will be sourced from existing budgets that are currently available to the Department for International Development?

Christopher Huhne: I can answer for the UK Government, but not for others. Some £2.9 billion will be drawn from the UK's aid budget and that figure will rise to 0.7% of gross national income by 2013, so it will be additional to existing spending. We are also maintaining the previous Government's commitment that the £2.9 billion will continue to account for less than 10% of overseas development assistance in every year of the spending period.

Graham Stringer: The Secretary of State has spoken very grandly about his aspirations and what he wants from the UN and for the globe. On a much more mundane level, if he gets all his aspirations on carbon targets and renewables, how much extra will my constituents have to pay in their energy bills in each of the next 10 years?

Christopher Huhne: Every year, in the annual energy statement, we set out what the impact is on consumers. The last time we made that calculation, in the annual energy statement in the summer, we calculated that, assuming an oil price of $80 a barrel, which is rather less than the current price, the total increase in household bills, taking into account our other policy measures, including energy saving, would be 1%. The higher oil and gas prices are, the greater the savings. The break-even point comes at $100 a barrel, beyond which our consumers will gain from the move to a low-carbon economy and away from the fossil-fuel economy.

Duncan Hames: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on seeing the negotiations through to the very end last week; it was certainly worth it. Now that the green climate fund has been agreed, how does he intend to broker international consensus on which of the options for climate finance may be taken forward to fill it?

Christopher Huhne: This is going to be a pretty difficult issue-we know that from the proceedings in the advisory group on climate change financing. There are a lot of options on the table, the technical work has largely been done and we have to hope that we can make further progress over the next year. Now that we have identified a clear political will to find that finance, we have to hope that the technical means to provide it will be there, but the technical options on bunker fuels, aviation and so on are set out in the group's report.

William Bain: I particularly welcome the progress on the REDD agreement that the Secretary of State has announced, especially given that deforestation accounts for up to a fifth of all annual global CO2 emissions. Will he be in a position, by the Durban summit, to update the House on the sources of funding for the programme, particularly on the contribution that will be made by businesses and Governments in the UK and the EU?

Christopher Huhne: I hope that we can update the hon. Gentleman even before then because there was a commitment in Cancun to use fast-start finance to get this going. Sadly, I can answer only for the UK Government and not for the 192 or so other Governments who were represented at Cancun. However, I very much hope, and will keep my fingers crossed, that we will make even more progress on this.

Joan Ruddock: I congratulate the Secretary of State on the role that he and his team played at Cancun and on continuing the Labour party's policies in that respect. Does he agree that individual European countries could afford to take a second Kyoto commitment period and that the EU could raise its emissions reduction target to 30% at very little extra cost given that, in the light of the recession, emissions have dropped?

Christopher Huhne: I entirely agree with the right hon. Lady and I have repeatedly made exactly that point to my European Union colleagues. That argument is making real progress-for example, Spain is the latest country to commit to the 30% target-so we are gradually getting there, but there are problems for some member states. Rome was not built in a day, and neither was the European Union.

BILL PRESENTED

Localism Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
	Mr Secretary Pickles presented a Bill to make provision about the functions and procedures of local and certain other authorities; to make provision about the functions of the Local Commission for Administration in England; to enable the recovery of financial sanctions imposed by the Court of Justice of the European Union on the United Kingdom from local and public authorities; to make provision about local government finance; to make provision about town and country planning, the Community Infrastructure Levy and the authorisation of nationally significant infrastructure projects; to make provision about social and other housing; to make provision about regeneration in London; and for connected purposes.
	 Bill  read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 126) with explanatory notes (Bill 126-EN)

Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill

Second Reading.

Dawn Primarolo: Before I call the Home Secretary, I inform the House that Mr Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

Theresa May: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	From the very start of British policing, Sir Robert Peel's key principle that the
	"police are the public and the public are the police"
	has set the standard across the world.
	I am sure the whole House will join me in praising the bravery, courage and professionalism of our police officers and staff, who do their dangerous job usually unarmed. As we saw again last week, police officers up and down the country put their lives on the line every day. Neighbourhood police officers and police community support officers deal with antisocial behaviour, catch and deter criminals and reassure the public. The Government appreciate and value all their efforts.
	But it is a sad fact that despite these efforts, crime is still too high, too many communities still live in fear, and too many people still do not believe, rightly or wrongly, that the criminal justice system is on their side. Our reforms to policing will make the service even better at fighting crime, more responsive to the needs of their local communities and much more efficient.
	We will not just talk about being tough on crime and its causes. Instead, we will free police officers up to be tough on crime by slashing the bureaucracy and targets that have kept them from the streets, and by giving them back the discretion to do what they believe is right. We will shift power directly into the hands of the public as they elect police and crime commissioners to lead the fight against crime and disorder in their areas.
	At national and international level, we will support the police in dealing with crime that crosses police force and international borders, so we will use subsequent legislation to introduce a powerful new operational body, the national crime agency, to take the fight against serious and organised crime to the next level and to enhance the security of our borders.
	Britain remains a high crime country. In England and Wales alone, the police are recording more than 1,000 incidents of grievous bodily harm or actual bodily harm every day and more than 4 million total crimes a year. That is unacceptable. We have one of the most expensive criminal justice systems in the world, but only half the public trust that it will protect them from criminals. We are now faced with the added challenge of cutting crime at the same time as we deal with the record budget deficit.
	To those who say that we should slow the pace of reform because of the need to make budget cuts, I say that the economic situation makes reform more important, not less. We need to do more to cut crime, reduce bureaucracy, increase accountability and drive value for money precisely because we are reducing budgets.
	The current policing governance arrangements are simply not working. Police authorities have become remote from the public-only 7% of people have even heard of them, and only 8% of local authority wards in England and Wales are represented on their police authority. They are not effective at doing what they are supposed to do. Fewer than one in three police authorities inspected last year were found to be performing well overall, and fewer than one in five performed well in setting strategic direction and value for money, despite the fact that these are their two main functions. They have neither the democratic mandate to set police priorities, nor the capability to scrutinise police performance.
	We need a new approach, one that takes power from the bureaucrats and puts it back in the hands of the people and the professionals. So the deal for the police is greater public accountability through police and crime commissioners and, in exchange, more freedom to do their jobs, less Government interference and much less bureaucracy. We have already begun slashing Labour's bureaucracy. By scrapping the stop-and-account form and cutting the items recorded during a stop and search, we will save 800,000 hours of police time every year, and that is just the start.

Keith Vaz: Will the right hon. Lady join me in commending the work of Jan Berry, who was appointed by the previous Government but completed her report under the present Government, and her recommendations to reduce police bureaucracy? Will the right hon. Lady give the House an undertaking that that work will continue, and that Jan Berry or someone like her will continue to monitor the reduction in the bureaucracy that is hampering the police in doing their job?

Theresa May: I am happy to take up the point made by the right hon. Gentleman. Jan Berry did a very good job in looking at police bureaucracy. Obviously, she had considerable experience which enabled her to do that. I can reassure the right hon. Gentleman that the work will continue. We are already taking forward further work in a number of ways to examine the bureaucracy surrounding policing so that we can take further steps to reduce the amount of bureaucracy that the police have to deal with.
	With a strong democratic mandate from the ballot box, police and crime commissioners will hold their chief constable to account for cutting crime. They will have the power to appoint and dismiss chief constables if they do not believe they are performing effectively. If the public do not believe that their police and crime commissioner is performing effectively, the commissioner will face the ultimate sanction of rejection at that same ballot box. Importantly, police and crime commissioners will set the annual budget for their force and will determine the local precept-the local contribution to policing costs.
	Police authorities are not properly accountable for how public money is used, so they do not drive value for money in their forces. The democratic mandate of police and crime commissioners will put them in a much stronger position to drive the efficiencies and value for money needed to ensure that resources are focused on the front line.

Alun Michael: The right hon. Lady mentions a number of functions and areas of accountability. Does she agree that whoever is responsible for the police must ultimately be judged by success in reducing crime, which is the single most important objective that the police have to deliver?

Theresa May: I am very pleased to hear the right hon. Gentleman echoing the very words that I have used to the Association of Chief Police Officers conference and other conferences when I have been speaking about the key aim of the police, which is indeed to cut crime.

Chris Bryant: I shall not echo what the Home Secretary has been saying. One of my big anxieties is that she talks about accountability in relation to the commissioners, but each of the forces in our land is a rather curious geographical unit. For instance, in the South Wales police, the demands of Swansea and of Cardiff will be completely and utterly different from the demands of valleys communities such as those in the Rhondda. It will be extremely hard for one person to reflect that better than a body of people who come together from the different communities.

Theresa May: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I will shortly deal with part of the point that he makes.
	Earlier today, we announced police force funding allocations. These ensure equal treatment across all forces, as each force will receive the same percentage reduction to its core Government funding. At the same time, we are giving the police service greater freedom than ever before over how to use its resources. With this new budgetary freedom, police and crime commissioners will be able to make real decisions about funding local priorities.
	Concerns have been expressed about placing this degree of power in the hands of one person. The hon. Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) made the point about an individual representing, in some cases, a large area with competing and different requirements within it. The Bill will ensure that there are appropriate checks and balances on those powers.
	At the core of our proposals is the establishment of new police and crime panels. These will ensure that there is a robust support and challenge role at force level, and that the decisions of the police and crime commissioners are tested on behalf of the public on a regular basis.

Hazel Blears: I share the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) about the ability of a single individual to be visible and accountable in an area such as Greater Manchester, with 2.5 million people. Is it not the case that the police and crime panels which the right hon. Lady proposes are remarkably similar to the police authorities, which have been criticised time and again for lack of visibility and lack of accountability?

Theresa May: No. I shall come on to describe some of the powers of the police and crime panels. That democratically elected individual is essential, restores a link between the police and the public, and makes sure that at those elections the public are able to have their say about what their police and crime commissioner is doing in terms of the responsibilities of the police. To those who raise the issue of representation of the full area, which is the point made by the hon. Member for Rhondda, I repeat the figure that I gave earlier in my speech: only 8% of local authority wards are currently represented on the police authorities, so the police authorities are not providing representation on the same basis as some of those who call for their continuation would argue.

Hazel Blears: rose -

Theresa May: I see that the right hon. Lady is eager to jump up again. I will take this intervention, then I will make progress.

Hazel Blears: I am very grateful to the Home Secretary, because those issues have obviously tested many Home Secretaries over the past few years. Has the right hon. Lady given any consideration to electing those local representatives, who would then be visible, accountable and have a local mandate?

Theresa May: Yes. Indeed, the right hon. Lady's own Government looked at the possibility of electing police authorities and rejected it, but we are sure about what we are doing through the police and crime commissioners and the police and crime panels. The panels will comprise locally elected councillors and some independent and lay members, who will be able to veto a commissioner's proposed precept by a three-quarters majority and veto any candidate a commissioner proposes for chief constable by the same majority. The public will also be given opportunities to scrutinise the performance of their police and crime commissioners directly, through enhanced local crime information, including street-level crime maps.

Charlie Elphicke: On accountability, is it not the case that London has an elected Mayor, covering 6 million people? That person is highly visible, highly accountable and, even, highly popular. There are executive mayors throughout the country, including in Lewisham and in east London, who are highly visible and accountable, too, so surely the argument about accountability is a bogus one.

Theresa May: I am very grateful to my hon. Friend, who is exactly right: this is not an untried method of dealing with police accountability. The Mayor of London is indeed the equivalent of a police and crime commissioner. Earlier, from a sedentary position, the hon. Member for Vale of Clwyd (Chris Ruane) said that the Mayor of London was "too visible", but politicians should be out there, visible and able to take on-

Chris Ruane: He's too blond!

Theresa May: I am not going to be tempted down the route of saying that he is too blond.  [ Interruption. ] You can never be too blond.

David Hanson: rose -

Theresa May: I want to make some progress, but I see that a former Policing Minister wishes to intervene, so I will take his intervention.

David Hanson: Will the Home Secretary clarify one point? Under current legislation, it is illegal for a police officer to be a member of the British National party or of other extremist groups, but will she clarify whether these elected individuals, at local council level or at commissioner level, will be able to be members of such political parties? Will that be compatible with managing police officers, who cannot?

Theresa May: I am about to come on to exactly that point. The right hon. Gentleman asks whether it is appropriate for such individuals to belong to a political party of which a police officer cannot be a member, but one could argue that the same position already exists: Home Secretaries are elected under political banners. I actually trust the people of this country on elections.
	I shall return to that point, because police and crime commissioners will give the public a real voice in policing. They will ensure that what the public cares about is taken seriously, and that local people's priorities are the priorities of the police. I thank ACPO for its constructive engagement in the reform process, and the Association of Police Authorities will have an important role to play until police and crime commissioners are introduced. We will continue working with the APA until that point. We have consulted widely with the public and with key partners, such as the APA and ACPO, through the consultation document "Policing in the 21st century: reconnecting police and the people", which was published earlier this year, and in other consultation with them. We have listened to their views and amended our proposals accordingly.

Edward Balls: On consultation with the Association of Police Authorities, there is a letter in  The Guardian today- [ Interruption. ] It is signed by the Conservative, Liberal Democrat and Labour leaders on the APA, and it says:
	"There is no evidence that PCCs"-
	police and crime commissioners-
	"will improve the service the public receive, and every reason to reject this proposal."
	Why has the Home Secretary failed to persuade Conservatives on the APA that her proposals are good proposals?

Theresa May: Comments about turkeys and Christmas might be appropriate at this point, and I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman think about that.

Edward Balls: Is the right hon. Lady really calling Mr Rob Garnham, the highly respected chair of a police authority, a turkey? Should she not withdraw that remark?

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman- [ Interruption. ] His hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd can even do the turkey noises for him.
	Let me explain my earlier comment. It is very straightforward. We have had discussions with the APA about the future of police and crime commissioners, and it is no surprise that police authority members are not as convinced as we are about setting up PCCs, because when they are set up police authorities will be abolished. That was my point, but I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will give us the benefit of his views.

Edward Balls: Turkeys voting for Christmas? May I quote Sir Hugh Orde, of the Association of Chief Police Officers, who said:
	"Every professional bone in my body tells me it is a bad idea that could drive a coach and horses through the current model of accountability for no added value but plenty of confusion"?
	Is the Home Secretary calling the head of ACPO a turkey as well?

Theresa May: No, I am not. Had the right hon. Gentleman been listening, he would have heard me say already how grateful we are for our constructive engagement with ACPO. We have listened to its comments on the introduction of police and crime commissioners and amended our proposals accordingly.
	To return to the point about democracy, first, I see no reason not to trust the British public. We trust the public and we trust democracy, so I see no reason to constrain democracy by vetting or by excluding candidates we might think are extremist. The British public have shown over the years that they are perfectly capable of stopping extremists where they should be stopped-at the ballot box.
	Secondly, although the whole point of our reforms is to improve the local accountability of the police, that in no way means that cross-boundary challenges such as organised crime, terrorism or other national policing issues will be neglected. Police and crime commissioners will be supported by a new strategic policing requirement to help them to hold their force to account for all its policing, and they will have a duty to collaborate with other police forces and other agencies, including the new national crime agency, on issues that cut across force boundaries. I am clear that the structures that we are putting in place must address national policing issues as well as local ones. Commissioners will also be required to work with other forces to simplify the arrangements for procurement and back-office functions in order to improve efficiency and achieve better value for money.
	Thirdly, let me reassure the House that the introduction of police and crime commissioners will in no way affect the operational independence of the police. Commissioners will not manage police forces.

Mark Tami: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Theresa May: No, I am going to make some progress.
	Commissioners will not manage police forces, and they will not be permitted to interfere in the day-to-day work of police officers. The Bill sets out for chief constables and for police and crime commissioners clearly defined roles that, in the words of the director of the Institute for Public Policy Research, are
	"actually a pretty good definition of operational independence".
	I should also like to point out for the benefit of Opposition Front Benchers that we have included provisions to prevent police and crime commissioners appointing political advisers from public funds. All appointments will need to be made on merit, and all posts must be politically neutral.

Vernon Coaker: Will the Home Secretary clarify that point? My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) quite rightly raised the issue of political advisers for police and crime commissioners, but the Policing and Criminal Justice Minister says that the posts will be politically restricted. Although "politically restricted" means not being active politically, it does not mean that these political advisers cannot be a member of a political party. Will the Home Secretary therefore confirm that political advisers to police and crime commissioners can be members of a political party?

Theresa May: Our intention is absolutely clear: the police and crime commissioners will not be able to appoint from public funds political appointees who are political advisers. We do not think that that is appropriate for them, and that is absolutely clear in what we are doing.

Vernon Coaker: I apologise to the Home Secretary for intervening again, but this is an extremely important point. When the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice explained the meaning of the term "politically restricted," he said:
	"You may not, for instance, be a member of a political party."
	It is not correct to say that someone cannot be a member of a political party when they are in a politically restricted post. Will the Home Secretary confirm that?

Theresa May: I am happy to confirm-this is at the heart of the matter, and I know that Opposition Front Benchers have been trying make something of the issue-that we are very clear that police and crime commissioners should not be able to appoint political advisers from public funds. I do not believe that that would be right. That is the intention behind what we are doing and this Bill.

Edward Balls: It is very important to be clear when we make statements in the House. It is not the case that Opposition Front Benchers have been trying to make something of the issue. At a meeting of the APA, the Policing and Criminal Justice Minister said that the first decision he would make if he were elected a police and crime commissioner would be to appoint a political adviser. Did he say that? Can the Home Secretary confirm that? If he did say it, can she tell him he was wrong to say it and that it is not in fact true?

Theresa May: I have just checked with my right hon. Friend and he is absolutely clear that he did not say that. I say to the right hon. Gentleman, who seems to think that the issue has suddenly arisen in the last minute, that the document that summarises the consultation responses to "Policing in the 21(st) century" states clearly on page 13, at paragraph 2.12:
	"Whilst the PCC will be able to appoint staff to advise and assist them, all staff must be appointed on merit and will be politically restricted posts."
	 [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members should wait. It goes on to state:
	"Party political office holders and active party members will not be able to be appointed to the PCC's staff."
	Our intention is absolutely clear.
	The running costs and day-to-day expenditure of police and crime commissioners will not be any greater than that of police authorities.

Mark Tami: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Theresa May: I am going to make some progress; I have been very generous in giving way to Opposition Front Benchers.
	The running costs and day-to-day expenditure of police and crime commissioners' will be less than 1% of the total costs of policing. What will be different is the value that the public get for that money. Police and crime commissioners will need to demonstrate value for money to local people or they will simply not be re-elected. The only additional cost of police and crime commissioners will be the costs involved in running the elections because, as we know, democracy costs money. That cost will be £50 million over four years, compared with the £50 billion that will be spent on policing in the same period.

Chris Bryant: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Madeleine Moon: rose-

Theresa May: No, I shall make some progress. Let me make this point clear: the money will not come from funds that would otherwise have gone to policing. In the spending review, the Treasury provided funds specifically for these elections because it knows, as I do, that this money will help to cut crime. In contrast, I ask hon. Members to remember that we currently spend £120 million of public money every day on paying the interest alone on the debt that the previous Labour Government racked up.
	Our proposals to introduce police and crime commissioners will reconnect the police with the public they serve, and will ensure that the police focus on what local people want, not on what national politicians think they want. Our proposals will help to cut crime and will deliver the efficient, effective and responsive police service that we all want.
	As well as giving power back to communities in terms of policing, the Bill will give power over licensing decisions back to local communities. Five years ago, when Labour introduced 24-hour drinking, they promised us a European-style café culture. I was the shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport at the time, and I told the House that Labour was being reckless in pressing ahead with longer licensing hours without first dealing with the problems of binge-drinking. Sadly, Labour's Licensing Act 2003 has proved to be the disaster that many predicted. The police continue to fight a battle against alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder, and the taxpayer continues to pick up the bill of more than £8 billion per year. Last year, there were more than 1 million alcohol-related hospital admissions. That cannot go on.
	Over the summer, we consulted on plans to overhaul the Licensing Act to give local communities greater power to tackle the problems associated with alcohol. We received more than 1,000 responses, which we have taken into account. The Bill will give all those affected by licensed premises the chance to have a say in the licensing process. It will allow early morning restriction orders to be extended to between midnight and 6 am and it will give licensing authorities the power to take swift action to tackle problem premises by refusing licence applications or applying for a licence review, without having to wait for a relevant representation from a responsible authority. The Bill will also lower the evidential hurdle for licensing authorities, so that it is easier for them to refuse or revoke licences from irresponsible retailers. In addition, the Bill will double the maximum fine for under-age sales to £20,000.

Keith Vaz: I warmly welcome what the Home Secretary has said today, which is in keeping with the recommendations of the Home Affairs Select Committee in the previous Parliament. Why did the Government not go that one step further and enshrine minimum pricing in legislation?

Theresa May: May I pay tribute to the Home Affairs Committee's work on the issue? I shall finish talking about what is in the Bill and will then comment on the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which is not covered in the Bill.
	We shall allow local councils to charge a late-night levy on licensed premises that open after midnight to help to pay for late-night policing and other services, such as taxi marshals or street wardens. On the issue raised by the right hon. Gentleman, which is not included in the Bill, the Government remain committed to banning the below-cost sale of alcohol and we will bring forward proposals on that shortly.
	Right hon. and hon. Members will not need me to tell them of the growing concern about the availability, use and potential harm of so-called legal highs. We supported the previous Government in the action they took to ban mephedrone, and we have taken legislative action against a similar but even more potent drug: naphyrone. The existing arrangements for bringing a drug under control using the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 remains our preferred approach. However, it simply takes too long to respond effectively to these new and fast-evolving substances. In the meantime, their availability in the UK goes unchecked and we run the risk that they will gain a foothold-as mephedrone did-and that they will cause damage on our streets and harm to our young people. The power in the Bill to make year-long temporary class drug orders-temporary banning orders-will strike the right balance between swift action and expert advice. The offences in the Bill are rightly targeted at suppliers and traffickers, and carry significant penalties.
	On a different issue, I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members from all parties would agree that for too long the historic Parliament square has been subjected to unacceptable levels of disruption and abuse caused by long-term encampments occupying the site. The actions of a small minority have also prevented others from enjoying an important public space. The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 tried to deal with the disruption on the square by targeting protest as a whole, but it went too far and missed the point. The continuing occupation of the square and last week's violence, on which I updated the House earlier, have shown that those measures have not worked. The Bill will restore the right to peaceful protest around Parliament by repealing the relevant sections of the 2005 Act.

David Blunkett: I confess that I was responsible for the original clause in what became the 2005 Act. I would like to apologise for that, because we did not quite get it right. However, it is not the drafting of the legislation that matters but whether people are prepared to implement it. The Home Secretary will certainly have my support if she can manage to get the police and the local authority to work together to do something, rather than simply talking about it.

Theresa May: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's point. I think it is fair to say that the whole of Parliament thought that previous attempts to deal with the matter had succeeded and that people were disappointed when we discovered that that was not the case. I can confirm that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (James Brokenshire), who deals with crime prevention, has been working very closely on the matter with the Metropolitan police, the Greater London authority, Westminster city council and, indeed, with the House authorities where relevant. Those parties are willing to work together to ensure that we keep Parliament square clear of encampments. The Bill does not deal with the problem of permanent encampments by restricting protests across the board; it bans the use of tents, other equipment and the unauthorised use of loudhailers in Parliament square.

Michael Ellis: The Bill must go through the relevant parliamentary procedures and will probably not receive Royal Assent until the end of July. Is my right hon. Friend conscious of the fact that the royal wedding is in April and that there will be pressure to remove the encampment before that auspicious occasion?

Theresa May: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. The Prime Minister made it clear at Prime Minister's questions, and I have made it clear separately, that we need to ensure that we can clear Parliament square for the royal wedding on 29 April.
	The Bill addresses another important area of law that is not currently working-the whole issue of how we apply universal jurisdiction, which is a key principle of international justice that enables some of the gravest offences to be prosecuted here, regardless of the state in which the offences were committed.

David Winnick: Does the Home Secretary accept that there are already adequate safeguards in this respect? It is not a question of someone simply going to the magistrates court alleging that a war criminal is on British soil. There is a feeling-she obviously does not share it-that this law is being changed as a result of the pressure that Israel put on the previous Government and is clearly putting on this Government. It does seem unfortunate that we are going to change the law because a foreign country has put such pressure on us.

Theresa May: We are not changing the law because a foreign country has put pressure on us. In relation to this law, the evidential requirement that is needed in order for somebody to go and get an arrest warrant is significantly less than that required for a successful prosecution. We are saying that the Director of Public Prosecutions should be able to look at any such application that is made and give consent to it or otherwise.

Charlie Elphicke: The measures on universal jurisdiction are one of the more important aspects of the Bill, because what we have seen before has made Britain a laughing stock as a place of fishing and trawling for international justice in matters that are better dealt with elsewhere.

Theresa May: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. It is certainly clear that the current process for applying for an arrest warrant has deterred some public figures from overseas from coming to the UK. The Bill will make the process fairer and safer by requiring the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions before a warrant can be issued.

Ann Clwyd: rose -

Richard Burden: rose -

Andy Slaughter: rose -

Andrew Love: rose -

Theresa May: I am about to come to the end of my speech, but I will give way to the right hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd).

Ann Clwyd: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. May I ask her what test the DPP will be expected to apply before an arrest warrant is granted under this new proposal that the district judge currently does not apply? What is the difference between them?

Theresa May: The key issue that the DPP will look at is the basis for the request for the arrest warrant and the extent to which there is a genuine basis for bringing it forward. He will look at the prospects for a successful prosecution and balance that issue in the view that he takes. At the moment, the threshold requirement is significantly less than would normally be required in bringing a successful prosecution.

Andy Slaughter: rose -

Theresa May: I will not take any more interventions because I am about to finish my speech. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be able to make a contribution later in the debate. I am very conscious that lots of Back Benchers wish to get in.

Andy Slaughter: Just to clarify this point?

Theresa May: As I said, I am about to finish my speech.
	The Bill is focused on cutting crime and putting power back where it belongs-in the hands of local people. Directly elected and directly accountable police and crime commissioners will bring reform to the police, ensuring that they cut crime, focus on local priorities and drive up performance. The problems of 24-hour drinking will be tackled by giving our communities greater powers over licensing decisions, and the emerging problems of legal highs will be dealt with through temporary banning orders.
	At the international level, our relationships with our overseas partners will be strengthened by the introduction of the key safeguard in the application process for universal jurisdiction arrest warrants. At home, our democracy will be strengthened by the restoration of the right to peaceful protest outside Parliament, at the same time as we take targeted action to deal with the long-term encampments and loudhailers which cause so much disruption and distress.
	This Bill is necessary, it is proportionate, and it is right. I commend it to the House.

Edward Balls: I beg to move,
	That this House declines to give a Second Reading to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill because it introduces an expensive set of reforms which will do nothing to bring the police closer to the communities they serve; because it risks a single elected politician remote from the frontline overruling operational policing decisions, thus ending one hundred and seventy years of tradition of police independence from politicians; because it gives insufficient attention to the risks of police force collaboration being undermined by the creation of individually elected police commissioners; and because the Government has indicated that it will implement this expensive and disruptive reform in the same year as the Government is making the biggest annual cut to police funding as set out in the Spending Review.
	Protecting the public and giving people confidence that they can live free from the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour is the first duty of Government. On the front line in the fight against crime are our police and police community support officers, who do a difficult, sometimes dangerous job with great professionalism. We should start by congratulating our police, who, in record numbers, under Conservative and Labour Governments since 1994, have delivered a 50% fall in crime. We congratulate them on that achievement. We will support the Government, where we can, to ensure that our police have the resources and the powers that they need to do the job.
	It is right, too, as the Home Secretary said, that the police must be close to the local communities they serve and be responsive to the views of local communities in order to be accountable to the taxpayer. I pay tribute to the reforms made in recent years by Labour Home Secretaries who have introduced neighbourhood policing, which has ensured that the police are embedded in our communities. That is an achievement of which Labour Members can be very proud.
	However, we will argue in Committee that there is more that we can do to deepen that accountability at the force level and at the neighbourhood level to ensure that the police are properly and fully responsive to local communities. I have to say to the Home Secretary that the approach to police accountability that the coalition is pursuing in the Bill is absolutely not the answer to that challenge. Indeed, the judgment of the Association of Police Authorities, which said that elected police commissioners are the wrong reform at the wrong time, is looking more prescient by the day.

Andrew Bridgen: Will the right hon. Gentleman cast his mind back to the cuckoo months of the previous Prime Minister's Administration, when the then Home Secretary, the former Member for Redditch, considered the idea of elected chiefs of police and then discarded it, not because of politicisation or fears about cost, but because of lobbying from Labour councillors who did not want to lose their lucrative positions on police authorities?

Edward Balls: I merely draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to the excellent House of Commons research report on the Bill, which makes it absolutely clear, in terms, that the then Home Secretary rejected that proposal because it would lead to the politicisation of our police, which is exactly why we are opposing these measures.
	Look at the storm that is now gathering around the Home Secretary. Over the past few days, we have seen the events in Sweden- [ Interruption. ] Hon. Gentlemen mock the events that are happening. We are seeing a rising terrorist threat. We saw the events of last Thursday and the statement that we had to have this afternoon about disorder on our streets. We have the Olympics coming up the year after next, with the Home Secretary now proposing to force through a 20% cut in the Olympic policing budget.

Theresa May: The right hon. Gentleman raised the Olympic security budget in his response to my statement earlier. I refer him, yet again, to today's written ministerial statement on police funding allocations, which says that we have protected the £600 million expenditure on Olympic security. In fact, we think that what is needed can be done more cheaply than that, but we are protecting the £600 million. Will he now withdraw his accusations?

Edward Balls: I will do no such thing, and I will tell the House exactly why. We are consistently told by the Home Secretary that she has protected the counter-terrorism budget. What she means by "protected" is that it is cut by only 10%, unlike the police budget, which is cut by 20%. That is what the protection is all about.

Stephen McCabe: I note that the policing Minister's letter says that he hopes to make savings and not to use the £600 million. Today's  Birmingham Mail points out that despite an earlier promise that the Pope's visit would be subject to a special grant for security, that grant was never provided, and west midlands police have virtually exhausted their contingency for special events. If that happens around the country, how can the Government possibly hope to make savings on the Olympics?

Edward Balls: I do not know the answer to that. When I spoke to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell), the shadow Olympics Minister, about it this afternoon, she said that she was assured that any reduction in the £600 million budget would be briefed on in advance with the details of the savings, but she has had no such briefing. It looks to me as though the commitment to keep £600 million in principle was rushed in at the weekend.
	The reality of the position is that the Home Secretary is seeking to achieve a 20% cut which will further stretch policing around our country at a time when the largest cut in our police budgets in peacetime history over the past 100 years has just been announced. In the west midlands and Greater Manchester, 2,500 officers are already set to lose their jobs, not to be appointed, or to be removed through regulation A19 powers, with equivalent numbers among PCSOs and other public staff. Other forces around the country will be considering today's announcement of 20% real-terms cuts. The health budget was broadly flat, although falling slightly; the schools budget was broadly flat, although falling slightly; and the defence budget was cut by 8%. People around the country are asking where the Home Secretary was and how come the police budget was cut by 20%.

Mark Tami: My right hon. Friend is talking about massive cuts across the piece. Does he agree that the £50 million that the Government are prepared to spend on electing police commissioners could be put towards front-line officers?

Edward Balls: As my hon. Friend knows, the Association of Police Authorities estimates that 600 officers' jobs could be saved with the money that will be spent on the unnecessary election of police commissioners. We hear nothing from the Liberal Democrats, who all stood on a manifesto commitment of 3,000 more police officers, not 20,000 officers being cut.

Mark Tami: I am reliably informed that I was wrong. The figure is not £50 million, but £136 million, despite what the Home Secretary said.

Edward Balls: I am happy to accept my hon. Friend's clarification on that point.
	The context for this legislation includes the largest cuts to policing that we have seen, police officers losing their jobs through A19 powers and a freeze on recruitment across the country, at a time when the security threat is rising. The Home Secretary and the business managers have chosen the day on which the cuts have been announced to ask for support for the risky experiment in police accountability that is elected police commissioners. The coalition has no mandate and no evidence base for that reform. It has not done a proper consultation and it has failed to win the active support of either the police or the public.

Matthew Hancock: Before the election, when the then Home Secretary was asked whether he could promise that police numbers would not be cut under Labour, he replied "No." Is not that and this nonsense about the Olympics budget why nobody is listening to the right hon. Gentleman as shadow Home Secretary?

Edward Balls: No. I know that the hon. Gentleman knows about Treasury matters, but he ought to read his brief a little more carefully before making such interventions, which reveal his lack of knowledge on our position.

Matthew Hancock: rose-

Edward Balls: I will answer the hon. Gentleman's previous erroneous intervention before I give him a second go to see whether he can do better. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary, an independent body, said that it was possible to make reductions of 12% in the central Government grant over four years, without cutting front-line policing, as we heard last week. The Government are pushing through savings not of 12% but of 20%, and they are doing so not over four years but by front-loading them, so that the biggest cuts are in the first two years. As police authorities say, it is impossible to make such cuts without cutting front-line policing capability. If what we proposed was being done, cuts to front-line police numbers-indeed, cuts to all police numbers-would be avoided. Under the coalition, there will be cuts to front-line policing. No Government Members were elected on such a manifesto, and they will be held to account in the coming months and years. I happily give way to the hon. Gentleman so that he can have a second go.

Matthew Hancock: I do not mind being held to account for sorting out the nation's finances. The right hon. Gentleman should answer the question. He said that my intervention was erroneous. When the previous Home Secretary was asked whether he could guarantee to protect police budgets from being cut, did he not say, "No"?

Edward Balls: The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to his own question. He can wave his arms around in a histrionic way, but the reality is that the previous Home Secretary said that he could not guarantee the individual decision of every chief constable of the 43 forces. However, he said that on the basis of a 12% reduction over four years, there would be no need for any reduction in police numbers. Under the coalition, the Police Federation estimates that 20,000 officers will be cut. We know that 1,100 officers will be cut in Birmingham and that 1,400 will be cut in Greater Manchester. The difference is that under our proposals there would have been no cuts to police numbers, and under the coalition proposals there will be cuts in every constituency and in every police force in the country. Those cuts will be made worse by the additional expenditure on the ridiculous and flawed proposals before us.

Michael Ellis: Am I correct that the shadow Home Secretary admitted that £1 billion of police budget cuts had to be made? If so, where would he make those cuts?

Edward Balls: If, rather than framing his intervention, the hon. Gentleman had listened to the previous one, he would have known the answer to his question and would not have had to bother asking it. HMIC said that a 12% reduction in the central Government grant over four years was deliverable without cuts to front-line policing. That advice has not been taken by the Government: they have gone not for 12% but for 20%, and it will be front-loaded on the first two years. The coalition policy will mean not 3,000 more police officers, but visible, front-line police officer cuts in police forces up and down the country. That is not the manifesto on which Government Members were elected, and they will be held to account.

Chris Bryant: Will the cuts not be more savage in particular areas? In police forces such as South Wales, the work that absolutely must be done, such as policing major sporting events, looking after the Welsh Assembly and the continuation of anti-terrorism work, will not be cut, meaning that the neighbourhood policing that happens in ordinary people's streets will end up being cut?

Edward Balls: I hope that that will not be the case. The chief constable of West Yorkshire police has said the opposite to me. His priority will be to protect neighbourhood policing, if possible.
	That point brings me to a smear that has been propagated regularly by those on the Government Front Bench. On the basis of the HMIC report, they claim-in my view erroneously-that only 11% of policing has been visible at any one time and that the other 89% has somehow been wasted on bureaucracy and form-filling. The fact is that 50% of that 89% comprises the policing of organised crime and domestic violence, criminal investigation departments, and work on drug and alcohol policies. Perhaps such policing is not done in neighbourhood teams, but it is vital nevertheless. It is discounted by those on the Government Front Bench as waste and bureaucracy. Frankly, that is an outrageous slur.

Nick Herbert: The right hon. Gentleman has admitted that he would have cut police funding by £1 billion a year, which is the HMIC proposal, and that under his proposals, there would be no cut in police numbers. Will he explain how he would achieve £1 billion of savings?

Edward Balls: I fear that we may be wasting time by going over the same point, but I will explain it again. HMIC said that a cut of more than 12% in central Government funding would lead to a cut in visible, front-line police numbers. The coalition is cutting central Government funding not by 12% but by 20%. As the previous Home Secretary made clear, on the basis of the HMIC report, savings could be made in procurement and through collaboration-precisely the sort of cross-force collaboration that will be undermined by elected police commissioners. It is possible to do that without cuts to front-line policing. It is the Minister's 20% cuts that will lead to a reduction in police numbers, as is accepted universally by police officers across the country.

David Hanson: I hope to help my right hon. Friend. As he knows, I was the Minister with responsibility for policing in the previous Government. The £1 billion that we sought to save was made up of £500 million to £600 million from overtime and shift patterns, several hundred million pounds from police procurement of things such as helicopters and uniforms, and savings through back-office staff mergers. All those savings could have been made without cutting front-line policing. The HMIC report shows that the additional £1 billion that is being taken out by the Government will damage front-line policing.

Edward Balls: My right hon. Friend is making the point that the previous Home Secretary would have fought his corner for the police and Home Office budgets. In the spending review, the Home Secretary did not exactly lead the police chiefs up Downing street, as the Secretary of State for Defence did with the defence chiefs. We heard nothing-not a squeak. The Home Secretary calls what we ended up with a fair settlement, but it is a deeply unfair settlement, compared with that for schools, health and defence, that hits the police disproportionately with spending cuts. Police chiefs around the country ask me, "Where was the Home Secretary?"

Charlie Elphicke: I have been listening to the right hon. Gentleman for the past 10 minutes, and I have yet to hear a credible alternative plan. All we have is another blank sheet of paper.

Edward Balls: What the hon. Gentleman will not hear from us is support for a reform that a former Met commissioner has today said is
	"without any intellectual underpinning or historical understanding".
	It will weaken police accountability by making it more personalised and less representative of local communities, and it will overturn a 170-year tradition of independence in policing by empowering one elected individual to direct police priorities, fire chief constables and hire political advisers to do his bidding. It will make cross-force collaboration harder, not easier, and it will divert millions of pounds-the equivalent of 600 police officers-from the front line to new elections. It is a flawed reform that will waste millions and do nothing to reduce crime, so we are very sceptical about giving the Bill a Second Reading.

Madeleine Moon: South Wales police currently have a police authority that contains cross-party representation from the leaders of a number of local authorities as well as people who are independently selected. How can it be said that there is greater democratic accountability when one person is directly elected than when there is cross-party representation from across the whole police authority area?

Edward Balls: I do not know, and that is one of the flaws in the Bill that we will need to investigate in Committee. As I understand it, that problem was why the Liberal Democrats did not support the policy. They rejected it in their policy documents in the past two years, stating that
	"police authorities must be representative of the whole community, including women and ethnic minorities, which is why we reject...plans for elected sheriffs."
	That was why they rejected the policy in the first place.

Paul Maynard: The right hon. Gentleman has described the current situation as "non-optimal". May I ask him what he means by that term and what his own plans for reform are, or is he doing just what his leader is doing and bringing nothing but a blank sheet of paper to the Chamber?

Edward Balls: As I said at the beginning, we will propose amendments in Committee to strengthen accountability at force and neighbourhood level, but in a way that is consistent with an approach to policing that respects political independence and ensures broad-based accountability across an area. Concentrating power in one individual will lead inevitably to political interference, and it will be impossible for one individual to represent, for example, the individual point of view of every town and community in West Yorkshire.

Charlie Elphicke: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Edward Balls: Oh, go on.

Charlie Elphicke: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his patience with me. In Kent, the police authority's idea of accountability seems to be to sue people who question it for libel, which I regard with serious concern. That should not be done with public money. The Library report to which he referred states that two thirds of the public said that they did not know who to go to if they had a complaint, and that 59% said that it was very difficult to have a say on how their area was policed. Surely an elected police commissioner would be more responsive.

Edward Balls: I do not know whether the Library report quotes the Conservative chair of the police authority in Kent, who, as I understand it, totally disagrees with the hon. Gentleman and says that the proposal is flawed and will not work. It will not be properly representative.
	Bizarrely, the coalition came along and proposed the abolition of police authorities, but then realised that it was a flawed policy. It then decided to reinvent police authorities and give them a new name so that they would be called panels rather than authorities. The problem of representation needs to be solved, because it is serious.

Hazel Blears: Does my right hon. Friend agree that visibility and accountability have to be balanced with the integration of services, particularly with local authorities and other partners? Partnership working in policing has been shown to work over the past few years, and a single elected commissioner could well tear the system apart and lead to much less effective policing on the ground.

Edward Balls: I agree, and effective accountability really ought to happen in the main in the basic command unit. We need to ensure that the police are accountable to their community, but that they can demand support from the local authority, the health service and the other agencies that are vital to tackling the causes of drug crime and wider youth crime. All that will be ripped up under the Government's proposals, and we will end up instead with one elected person for a massive area, who will be able to visit each ward perhaps once every other year. That is not local accountability at all.

Aidan Burley: The right hon. Gentleman has just said that a single elected individual could rip apart the policing in an area. Is that what he would say to Bill Bratton, who was the single elected individual who increased the detection of crime in New York and Los Angeles?

Edward Balls: The shadow policing Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), read out to me earlier the views of Bill Bratton on the Conservative proposals and the risky and reckless way in which they are drawing conclusions from the American experience. Bill Bratton said:
	"What I would suggest is create your own experience; don't try to learn from us-seriously."
	He went on to explain exactly why the American policing model does not translate into a British context, and why it is dangerous to draw such a conclusion.

Alun Michael: I am interested that my right hon. Friend has read the evidence given by Mr Bratton, who went on to say that telling all 43 police authorities that they had to be managed in the same way was an experiment. He contrasted that with the plethora of different ways in which things are done in the States, including the variety of experiences that he had had himself.

Edward Balls: He did say that, and I am glad to receive my right hon. Friend's praise for reading the evidence given to the Home Affairs Committee. I do so on behalf of the shadow policing Minister, who read it in even greater detail.
	The question of new panels points to another flaw in the Bill. There is one area in which the Home Secretary has agreed that the panels actually will have power, and it is the one in which we would think an elected police commissioner ought to have legitimacy-the setting of the precept. Rather bizarrely, on abolishing police authorities and establishing the panels, the one power that the Home Secretary gives the panels is to veto any proposal for a rise in the precept by the elected police commissioner. The commissioner will not have the power to set the precept without veto from the panel, and apparently will not be involved in operational policing, so it is not clear what they will be able to do. They will be even less powerful than the police authorities are at the moment.
	I will not go into detail on the issue of political advisers, because we have done to death the mistake of the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice in saying to  The Guardian that staff of the policing and crime commissioners will not be able to be members of political parties. It is absolutely clear that he is wrong about that and that they will be so able.
	The Home Affairs Committee report is very instructive on the matter of operational responsibility. The problem is that one individual will be elected solely on a policing mandate and will stand alongside a chief constable. That makes the definition of operational responsibility very important. As I asked the Home Secretary earlier, what will happen if a commissioner is elected on a mandate of, for example, abolishing speed cameras or introducing water cannon-if the Home Secretary allows that-and the chief constable says, "No, in my judgment that is not required operationally"? Who will decide? I am afraid that the lack of clarity on that issue raises the spectre of politicisation in certain circumstances. That will need to be discussed in Committee, because the Home Affairs Committee was right to say that without a proper definition, a memorandum and a way of getting the situation clear, there is an inevitable risk of politicisation, which is exactly the fear of police chiefs across the country.
	The final point that we hear regularly is that London is somehow a model. Of course, in London the Mayor is elected not for policing but for a wider range of powers. He tried to get involved in the hiring and firing of commissioners, but decided that it was inappropriate because it risked politicisation, and had to stand aside for his non-elected deputy to take over responsibility for the matter backed by a police authority of elected members from the Greater London authority with proper powers. The Home Secretary invents reasons why the model that she proposes cannot apply to London, but the reason is that it has been tried there and did not work.
	I want to address some of the wider issues in Bill. They cover only one third of the clauses, and our intention, where possible, will be to seek consensus on these proposals. The Bill contains a number of changes to the licensing regime and to powers for councils that build upon, rather than reversing, the licensing reforms of the past decade. If the Bill receives its Second Reading today, we will clearly need to examine the proposals in detail in Committee, but we will support extra powers to enable local communities and the police to keep public order to ensure that people can enjoy a night out in a safe and secure manner.
	We will look into the proposals on drugs in detail, but at this point, we cautiously welcome the temporary banning orders that the Home Secretary is proposing. However, there is a suggestion, in the changes to the role of the advisory committee, of a move away from evidence-based policy making on drugs. That gives us some cause for concern, and we shall need to look closely at the matter in Committee. As we heard from the former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett), the devil will be in the detail, as it was with the reform of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005. We will look closely at the detail of the proposals in Committee.
	We will also probe the details of the clauses on universal jurisdiction in Committee. The Opposition believe strongly in the importance of universal jurisdiction, and we will support the proposed changes to make it work more effectively in each of the relevant areas. We will seek to achieve consensus in Committee, but, as I have said, these measures add up to less than one third of the clauses in the Bill, and as far as the policing issues are concerned, it has been very hard to be the shadow Secretary Of State.

Mark Reckless: I should first declare that I am a member of the Kent police authority and that I support our abolition. I should also correct the right hon. Gentleman: our chair is not a Conservative. On the issue of operational independence, surely Ministers have made it very clear that there should be no interference by politicians on matters of individual investigation or arrest. Does he not agree, however, that it is quite proper for there to be democratic oversight of the broader issues of strategy and of the setting of budget priorities?

Edward Balls: I fully agree about the importance of that middle tier of political accountability for chief constables. What I and many other experts fear, however, is that if one individual is elected on a direct mandate for policing, it will be very hard indeed to prevent their supposed mandate from crossing operational dividing lines. That does not happen now, because each police authority-half of which comprises independents, the other half of which is indirectly elected-covers a number of areas and often comprises a number of political parties. They ensure that there is a collective sense that operational responsibilities are properly respected. I have no doubt that some elected police and crime commissioners will want to respect operational independence, but I have no doubt that individuals might be elected on a mandate that explicitly crosses that line. Unless that element of the Bill is sorted out quickly, we will end up with an expensive politicisation of policing in this country that will overturn 170 years of policing tradition.
	I have looked carefully to find support for the Bill. I have already quoted Sir Hugh Orde and ACPO. I have also quoted the Association of Police Authorities. Police superintendents take the same view, as do Liberty and the Local Government Association. I have spoken on this matter at two conferences where I have urged anyone in the room who supports the proposals to identify themselves to me privately afterwards, because no one will dare admit to it publicly. As a member of a responsible Opposition, I want to know the arguments, yet nobody will come forward. It is very hard indeed to find anyone who supports this policy.
	As a result of assiduous research by our shadow team, however, I have identified three organisations that support the proposal. The first is a think-tank called Policy Exchange. Yes, it is the think-tank that was founded by the Secretary of State for Education, and the think-tank that said that the solution to unemployment in the north was for people to move to the south. Mr Blair Gibbs made the case for these commissioners on behalf of that organisation. He was in fact chief of staff to the policing Minister between 2007 and 2010.
	The second organisation is called Direct Democracy, which included in its book "Direct Democracy: An Agenda for a New Model Party" a chapter on the case for independent police commissioners. Yes, that is the Direct Democracy that was founded by the hon. Member for Clacton (Mr Carswell) and by the Tory MEP Mr Daniel Hannan-he who described the NHS as a "60-year mistake". Unfortunately, the chapter in the book was authored by the policing Minister himself.
	The third organisation is a think-tank called Reform. In its 2009 pamphlet, it also advocated this policy. Yes, the Reform think-tank is now headed by the former Tory central office head of political research, and it was founded by the policing Minister. So there we have it: a former chief of staff to the Minister, a chapter written by the Minister and a think-tank founded by the Minister. Unusually for the coalition, the Minister responsible for the policy actually supports it, which is quite a turn-up for the books.

Aidan Burley: The right hon. Gentleman has been talking about operational independence for the past five minutes. Does he not agree that, when Tony Blair summoned all 43 chief constables to a knife crime summit in Downing street and urged them collectively to do more about knife crime, he was illustrating exactly the way in which politicians could constructively influence the police?

Edward Balls: Of course the hon. Gentleman is right: Prime Ministers should take an interest in these matters, and I am sure that the Prime Minister of the time did that while fully respecting the operational independence of the police. The present Prime Minister is an advocate of individually elected police commissioners; in fact, it was in his 2005 manifesto. It is always good for the Home Secretary to support the Prime Minister if she can, but sometimes, as I know, it is important to say no. I am afraid that, on this matter, she has been remiss in her duties. It would have been much better if she had said to the Prime Minister, "I am very sorry, Prime Minister, but a policy that sounded good in opposition is deeply flawed and unimplementable in government."

Robert Halfon: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned three organisations that support the proposals for elected police commissioners. I should like to read him a quote from a fourth:
	"And with local meetings, new elected police representatives, and online crime mapping, people will have more information and more influence over what their local team is focused on."
	That quote is from the Labour party website, www.labour.org.uk.

Edward Balls: As I have said, we are looking carefully at this proposal. We have investigated it in detail, and we have concluded that it is a bad idea because it risks politicising our police and it is a waste of money. The money would have been better spent on police officers on the front line. We had a record number of police officers, and now we are seeing the biggest cuts in peacetime history.

Chris Bryant: Is not the absolute proof that the Government know that these are to be politicised posts the fact that the Bill allows for the Home Secretary to make provision for the candidates for the posts to be included under the terms of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000? They will effectively become politicians; they will be party nominees.

Edward Balls: As I understand it, though, the drafting of the Bill has not taken into account the fact that funding needs to be restricted on third-party campaigning. This issue needs to be cleared up and properly brought into line with other political elections. We know that the matter will be politicised by those on the Government Benches, because they have said so.
	It is the job of the Home Secretary to stand up for public safety, to fight for police numbers and to resist barmy political reorganisations that get in the way of progress. Instead, we have seen her standing back and giving in to the Chancellor on huge and disproportionate cuts to policing, and being steamrollered by the Treasury into proposing front-loaded cuts. We have seen her stand at the Dispatch Box and recite a script that was written by the Prime Minister before he was Leader of the Opposition, back in 2005. To agree to any one of record police cuts, front-loading of cuts or a risky change to political accountability would be a foolish thing to do, but to sign up to all three at the same time is very reckless indeed. That is what the Home Secretary has done over the past six months in the job. It is time that she got some operational independence and started to do the job that she was appointed to do. She must stand up for our police and our communities, and resist these barmy proposals. We oppose giving the Bill a Second Reading.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Due to the number of speakers, I am introducing a 10-minute limit on speeches.

Caroline Dinenage: As we saw in the ugly scenes outside this building last Thursday, the police deal with people at their worst, when they are in states of anger, violence, grief, shock and fright, and frequently when they are unpredictable because of drug or alcohol use. Through all that, they have to retain their composure, sense of perspective and humanity. Many of us here today have had the opportunity to go on patrol with our constabularies better to understand the pressures that they routinely face on our behalf.
	A Saturday night patrol gave me a unique insight into the diverse range of incidents that a two-man team can be called upon to deal with. As we went from one incident to the next, I was impressed by their patience and professionalism, and their ability to maintain a sense not only of perspective but of humour. I went home exhausted, with a feeling of achievement at just having survived the night, while they, of course, had to go and do it all again the following day. I have spoken at length to my local chief constable and other police officers about the Bill. Why? Because it is too important to get wrong. No one knows when they will need to call upon the police for assistance, but we do know that, at that point, we will expect them to be there.
	Budget reductions are never desirable, but in the current economic climate they are necessary to get the country back on track. Some forward-thinking chief constables might see it as an opportunity to rethink traditional practices, restructure management hierarchies, get the best out of support infrastructure such as HR and procurement, see opportunities for cross-boundary collaboration and information sharing, and run things better and more effectively.
	The scope of the Bill is vast, but there are three main parts that I want to talk about, beginning with the proposals on licensing. In a previous life, I sat on the licensing committee of the local council, and local residents would often cite their frustrations with the antisocial behaviour of people leaving bars and clubs late at night. At present, the responsibility of the landlord ends outside the bar or club, and short of ushering customers away from their premises with a plea to leave quietly, they are essentially free to make their money while others are left to clear up the undesirable after-effects.
	What taxpayer in their right mind would prefer to see their money pay for police in yellow jackets spending all night dealing with teenagers who have drunk themselves stupid on alcopops, rather than catching burglars, rapists and murderers?

Justin Tomlinson: Scenes such as those my hon. Friend has just described are all too typical and do much damage to the night-time economy. Does she agree that the late-night levy will help to deliver a safer night-time economy, which will be a boost to the vast majority of law-abiding customers who are all too often put off by the actions of the disgraceful minority?

Caroline Dinenage: My hon. Friend makes a good point. It is important that the levies are imposed only on venues that supply alcohol between midnight and 6 am. That means the responsible pubs and clubs that shut earlier and are managed well, are able to go about their business without any such levies. The funds generated by the levy will be payable to the police and crime commissioners to help to fund the necessary policing, as well as to other organs of local government that address the effects of alcohol-related crime and disorder.
	Another positive outcome of the Bill is the reduction in centrally set targets and in bureaucracy. The mass data collection prescribed by the previous Government is one of the biggest frustrations for our police. In Hampshire, it amounts to 130 weeks' worth of extra work per year-two full-time members of staff-just to satisfy the demands of the Home Office. And I have no idea who reads all that stuff. The plea from local police is that this great advance towards common-sense policing needs to be reflected in changes to the criminal justice system. At the moment, our police spend thousands of hours preparing court cases in which the perpetrator says nothing on arrest or at interview but pleads guilty in the Crown court. All the preparation work was therefore an utter bureaucratic waste of time. There has to be some way of mitigating that.
	Hampshire has the sixth biggest force in the country, policing about 2 million people, and substantially more during the summer.

Chris Bryant: Is the hon. Lady really suggesting that police officers should not do any preparation because they think that someone might plead guilty? What then happens when the person does not plead guilty?

Caroline Dinenage: I suggest that far too much police time is spent preparing for an inevitable guilty plea.

Chris Bryant: Why is it inevitable?

Caroline Dinenage: Well, in some cases it is an inevitable guilty plea. It is thousands of police hours-not in every case, but in many.
	There are clear benefits from increased collaboration between forces, not least improved efficiency, the driving down of costs and the avoidance of reinventing the wheel. Police forces can do a lot with sharing back-office functions and procurement. In Hampshire constabulary there will be collaboration with the neighbouring Thames Valley force on facilities such as dog teams, firearms response, IT and surveillance aircraft.
	We also need to ensure that the collegiate approach is backed up with shared local information. So many times, the police talk of the frustrations of the record management system, with local criminal information not being available across county borders, which the bad guys are happy to exploit.
	There is a tendency for people to view the police as "them and us," but the police are us; the us that is prepared to deal with humanity at its worst. As both Robert Peel and the Home Secretary have said,
	"The police are the public and the public are the police."
	In Gosport, our local police work hard to build up trust in traditionally wary neighbourhoods. The Bill starts to recognise that work and build on it, and is joined up in both its approach and its delivery.

Gerald Kaufman: What my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) has said about the attacks on the strength of the police and about the cuts in police budgets particularly affects us in Greater Manchester, where we have an absolutely excellent local police service that will be severely damaged by what the Government propose.
	I wish, however, to concentrate on clause 151, which has been smuggled in to fulfil a Conservative election pledge made in a full-page advertisement in the  Jewish Chronicle during the general election, namely the change in the administration of universal jurisdiction in this country. There is no need whatsoever to change the law. To obtain an arrest warrant for a suspected war criminal, it is essential to surmount a high hurdle, and that rarely happens. Such applications are made rarely, and are granted even more rarely. This change in the law would never have been proposed if it were not for the case of Tzipi Livni, the war criminal daughter of a terrorist father, who was scared off coming to this country because of the danger of an arrest warrant being issued for her. She was jointly responsible for the slaughter in Gaza in Operation Cast Lead in which 1,400 people were killed, including 300 children, in a war in which 14 Israelis were killed, some by friendly fire. It is bizarre that a major change in our criminal justice system is being made at the demand of one of the most discredited regimes in the world.

Matthew Offord: The right hon. Gentleman specifically identifies Tzipi Livni and talks about the accusations that have been levelled against her, but I am sure that he will agree that, as Foreign Minister, Livni would not have had either direct or ultimate command responsibility for any of the alleged atrocities. Will he concede that what he has just told the House is incorrect?

Gerald Kaufman: Of course not. Tzipi Livni is a war criminal and, what is more, she issued a vocal and extreme statement in support of the attack on the Gaza flotilla. She is not wanted in this country-

Matthew Offord: She is in my constituency.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Gerald Kaufman: Without the change in the law she would not dare come here.
	The Israeli Administration are one of the most discredited regimes in the world, and have persisted in committing war crimes, right through to the lethal attack on the Gaza flotilla on 31 May.

Robert Halfon: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Gerald Kaufman: I shall give way in a moment. Israel breaches international law and the Geneva convention- [ Interruption. ]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Hon. Members should know better. I do not want a debate going on across the Chamber from sedentary positions. If Members want to intervene, they should do so in the correct manner.

Gerald Kaufman: The fact is that Israel breaches international law and the Geneva convention every single day. It has just snubbed the President of the United States by refusing to halt the illegal building of settlements-that in itself is a contravention of international law.

Robert Halfon: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I must say that his hatred for Israel knows no bounds. He explains exactly why universal jurisdiction needs to be changed-it is being used as a political football by people such as him who have hidden agendas.

Gerald Kaufman: There would have been no proposal to change the universal jurisdiction law if Tzipi Livni had not been scared away from this country after committing appalling war crimes against the people of Gaza. It is as simple and as plain as that.
	As I said, the Israelis have just snubbed the President of the United States by refusing to halt the illegal building of settlements. The Israeli regime uses its powers of arrest without charge arbitrarily. Two Members of the Knesset, including the Deputy Prime Minister, were scared away by the law, but 30 members of the Palestine National Council are currently held by the Israelis without charge. That is not a threat of arrest, but an actual arrest.
	Last month, when I was in Jerusalem, I visited three PNC members who are taking refuge from arbitrary arrest by the Israeli police with the international Red Cross. I met and heard the testimony of young Palestinian children who were assaulted by Israeli police-they showed us their scars and bruises-as a result of the arbitrary and illegal way in which the Israeli police treat Palestinians, including Palestinian children. When we met the Foreign Minister of Jordan in Amman, he told us that he had to offer diplomatic shelter to the President of Palestine because when they were driving along one after the other, the President was continually halted at Israeli checkpoints. For all those crimes and many more, the Israelis are answerable to no one. Now, one of the few sanctions on those crimes will be removed. As a result of the Bill, Israeli politicians will be literally allowed to get away with murder.
	That comes at a time when the ground is shifting. As I said, the pledge on the measure was made in a full-page advertisement in the  Jewish Chronicle in order to get Jewish votes in the recent general election, but there is an upheaval in the Jewish community, as a result of which the across-the-board support for anything an Israeli Government do is no longer available.

Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend referred to what people said during the general election. Does he recall what position every single Liberal Democrat MP took before and during the general election?

Gerald Kaufman: I am well aware what they said, because week after week, I sat in the Chamber at business questions, when the current Deputy Leader of the House rose without fail to say how heinous and unacceptable it would be for the Labour Government to change the law on universal jurisdiction, and how the Liberal Democrats would be totally opposed to any such change. We have an obligation to remind the electors of Oldham East and Saddleworth of the broken Liberal Democrat pledge of 3,000 more police on the streets, and of their broken pledge to oppose any change in the law on universal jurisdiction. Those things will not go by unnoticed.
	As I said, an upheaval is taking place in the Jewish community. The attitudes of leading Jews who have been vocal champions of Israel are becoming deeply critical of the current Israeli Government. One of the most active and vocal supporters of Israel has accused them of being in the process of turning Israel into an "apartheid state".
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Chris Bryant) pointed out, the hypocrisy of the Liberal Democrats on universal jurisdiction is unlimited, as on so many matters. Week after week, their spokesman rose and vehemently opposed a change in the law for which he will vote tonight, just as Liberal Democrats voted last week in blatant breach of their election pledges.
	Whatever change in the law the Government introduce for the most craven reasons, Tzipi Livni and her ilk will remain unwelcome in this country. What worries me is that without a valid and operable legal sanction-one currently exists, but the Bill will repeal it-and without the legal deterrent that the Bill removes, disapproval of the presence in this country of Livni, Netanyahu and their cronies will take forms that I and many others deplore.

David Burrowes: Is it not a fact that the right hon. Gentleman is at the extreme in his views on Israel? Many of us consider them abhorrent, and Front Benchers on both sides of the House have expressed their support for clause 151. It is interesting that he has used the debate on the Bill as a vehicle to display his political views rather than to debate justice. Does he agree that arrest warrants should be issued when there is insufficient evidence to justify a prosecution, because that is at the heart of this matter of justice, not his political views?

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman may wish to behave like a creep to his Front Benchers-I was elected to Parliament not to creep to my Front Benchers, but to speak on behalf of my constituents. Indeed, I persuaded the previous Prime Minister to abandon his proposal to change the law on universal jurisdiction. I went to see him and persuaded him that the proposal was mistaken, and he did not proceed with it. If my Front Benchers do not want to agree with me, that is their business. I state a view that I have stated consistently in the House for very many years, and I shall continue to do so, because it is the Israelis who are in trouble, the Israelis who are turning Israel into a pariah state, and the Israelis who will be overcome by demographic changes-they will be outnumbered by the Palestinians-and this Government are an accomplice to what they are doing. God forgive them.

Tom Brake: I should like to use this opportunity to thank the police for performing the difficult role of policing our country while ensuring that people's civil liberties are observed.
	I thank the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) for mentioning Oldham and Saddleworth, because it gives me an opportunity to tell him that I was there on Saturday on Sunday. I can assure him that the circumstances that led to the by-election are at the forefront of the minds of residents. They are reflecting at some length on what action the Labour party took in the general election campaign, and I am sure that they will continue do so as they walk into the polling stations to cast their votes.
	The bulk of the Bill clearly deals with the elected police and crime commissioners.

Stephen McCabe: Is the action that the hon. Gentleman has in mind the legal action mounted by the Liberal Democrats several weeks after they lost an election they thought they would win?

Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Liberal Democrats went to the courts because allegations were made in the Labour party literature that were completely unsubstantiated. They were not just the normal unsubstantiations that one expects from the Labour party, but significant unsubstantiations and-indeed-slurs and innuendoes against the Liberal Democrat candidate.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I am not sure that Oldham has much to do with this debate. We all know the way to Oldham now.

Tom Brake: I regret being led astray by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe).
	I was saying that the Bill is principally about elected police and crime commissioners, who will provide the potential to improve police accountability. I believe that it will lead to something that does not exist currently: individuals with whom local residents can identify and hold directly responsible, in electoral terms, for the success or otherwise of policing in their area and the strategy and budget adopted to tackle crime. It is our role-I hope it is the Labour party's role too, but we will have to see in Committee-to improve further on this positive development by ensuring, for example, that elected police and crime commissioners are truly accountable.
	An essential ingredient will be the effectiveness of the panels, and one way of judging their effectiveness will be to look at their powers of veto. I seek clarity from the Minister about the power of veto over the appointment of chief constables. I would also like to know why no reciprocal powers have been proposed in relation to the suspension of elected police and crime commissioners should it be necessary.
	Under clause 30-I hope the Minister will pick up on this at the end of the debate-an elected police and crime commissioner can be suspended if found guilty of an offence that carries a maximum term of more than two years. The Local Government Association and Liberty have expressed concern about that. Given that an assault on a police constable, for instance, could lead to a term of just six months, why has the threshold been set at two years? Although one would not go to the extent of requiring an elected police and crime commissioner never to have had a parking ticket, they would need to observe certain standards.
	Clause 58, to which the shadow Secretary of State referred, provides for elections. I hope that the Minister will address a couple of issues that the Electoral Commission has flagged up. It has said that there do not appear to be provisions enabling the commission to provide advice and assistance to returning officers, political parties, candidates and agents. However, it might be expected that it would do so anyway and that therefore we do not need provisions enabling it. The second issue is whether third party campaigns would have to report any financial expenditure in support of a particular candidate.
	On clause 79, the Minister will be aware that one of the big discussions about elected police and crime commissioners has been on how they will balance their essential role of dealing with local crime with their equally essential role of focusing on national priorities, which might not be as visible to the electorate but will still need addressing. The Minister will have been lobbied by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children and a range of other organisations concerned about national policing capabilities and the effect on their-perhaps niche-concerns. I am not saying that looking after children is a niche concern-it is an essential priority. I am thinking of other areas, such as business crime. The Minister has covered that brief for many years and, like me, will have been lobbied for years by the business community on the importance of addressing business crime. The British Retail Consortium, among others, has requested that it be covered in the national policing capabilities. I do not know whether that much is necessary, but I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about it.
	Part 2 of the Bill does not mention the below-cost sale of alcohol, so I hope that the Minister will tell us what is planned in that respect. The principle of the late night levy is excellent, but he will know that the LGA has sought greater flexibility to allow it to take into account the extra costs, but without the additional administration of a late night levy. I hope that he can explain why a late night levy was adopted, rather than providing more flexibility in tackling the full cost of processing licences.
	I do not feel the same animosity as other hon. Members do towards the noise from Parliament square. It is an important principle that people should be allowed to demonstrate there, which is why we need clarity on the proposals, particular on the oral instructions given to people. How will that work? How will people know when a formal oral instruction has been given requiring them to comply with a direction not to use amplified noise equipments, tents or sleeping bags, for instance? I also have concerns about the force and forfeiture powers that might be provided to employees of the Greater London authority and Westminster city council.
	On the misuse of drugs, the Minister has made it clear that there is no attempt to stop scientists being involved in this process-my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert) might be tabling amendments on this point. We want to be certain that scientists will be involved, and that policies will be evidence based.
	The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton made a point about arrest warrants. I understand his concerns, but I think they can be addressed-I hope this will be made clear in the Bill-if the Director of Public Prosecutions is under strict instructions to ensure that any requests for warrants are processed within a very short period. That would ensure that the process is not used as a means of preventing action from being taken simply because it takes too long to consider a matter. I have had discussions with a previous DPP, whose clear view was that requests can be turned around quickly and that they will not get in the way of action being taken when necessary.

Duncan Hames: It is essential that the role is conducted in a timely fashion. However, does my hon. Friend agree that for the public to have confidence in the arrangement the DPP must be able to exercise his or her role without political interference from the Attorney-General, who is an elected politician exercising a supervisory role over the DPP?

Tom Brake: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. I can assure him that the previous DPP whom I was talking to would have ensured that there was no political interference of the kind he describes, as will, I am sure, the current DPP.
	It is difficult in the time allotted to do justice to what is in the Bill. There are solid proposals that we can improve on-and which I am sure we will debate at length in Committee-for elected police and crime commissioners. There are also some positive developments in relation to licensing that I know local authorities will support. On the misuse of drugs, I welcome what the Minister has said before-and what he may say again today-regarding the important role that scientists will play in making an evidence-based assessment of the impact of drugs. Finally, on the proposals to change the way in which arrest warrants are issued, it remains my view-and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chippenham (Duncan Hames)-that sufficient resources will need to be provided to the DPP to ensure that arrest warrant requests are dealt with speedily, and are not used as a means of ensuring that appropriate action is not taken. This Bill provides a positive step on policing, and I look forward to debating it in greater detail in Committee.

Karl Turner: I would like to focus on part 1 of the Bill-on the proposals for directly elected police and crime commissioners. The proposals throw up a wide range of issues and will fundamentally undermine the foundations of policing, ending years of police independence from politicians. There is a great deal in the Bill to which I object, but I want to focus on two particular concerns. First, the implementation of elected police and crime commissioners is an expensive process, coming at a time when our police forces are facing deep and serious cuts. Secondly, the Bill concentrates a great deal of power into the hands of one person-the elected commissioner-and will, in my view, lead to our sacrificing the police's political independence, which has existed successfully for more than 170 years.
	The reforms come at a crucial time for the police-a time when they have to absorb the impact of cuts to both the Home Office and local government funding and when, despite the Tory rhetoric, the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a massively underfunded shake-up of the criminal justice system. For those with an interest in crime and justice, these are indeed worrying times. It happens to be a fact that under the last Labour Government, crime fell by 43%, while the chance of being a victim of crime fell to a 30-year low. There can be no doubt that that great achievement was underpinned by record police numbers. That progress is now being put at risk by reckless cuts.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Karl Turner: I am always happy to give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Percy: The hon. Gentleman talks about police numbers. Will he remind us what happened to police numbers in Humberside in the last year of the Labour Government? If he cannot remember, I will remind him that we saw a fall of 130in the number of officers.

Karl Turner: It is convenient for the hon. Gentleman to suggest such a thing, but the reality of this Government's proposals is that police numbers will fall substantially. He represents Humberside, as I do, and I am sure that he, too, will have heard the concerns of police officers about the risks to which this Government are exposing them. Police numbers will fall as a result.
	The reforms are happening at a time when, despite the rhetoric that we hear, the Ministry of Justice is undertaking a massive shake-up of the system. Although the Home Office has claimed that the annual cost of running police commissioners and panels will be the same as the cost for police authorities, we understand that extra costs of £136.5 million will be incurred, owing to the need to hold elections. In addition, there is a further £5 million fund for redundancy payments. It seems that this Government cannot implement any policy without slashing jobs. The Tory manifesto stated: "Policing relies on consent." My fear is that the Bill will stretch the public's consent to breaking point. One has to imagine a situation in which police numbers fall and crime increases, while at the same time the public are asked to shoulder the cost of another level of bureaucracy in the policing system.
	I also have grave concerns, as do many others, about operational independence and the politicisation of the police force. The political independence of the police is as important in our democracy as the independence of the judiciary. A crucial principle of UK policing is its operational independence and unwavering commitment to non-partisanship. If policing operations are overseen by someone who is politically motivated, maintaining police independence will become increasingly difficult.

Aidan Burley: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Karl Turner: Not at the moment. I would like to make some progress.
	Any change to police force operations must ensure that that independence remains. The Government's proposals will not maintain that crucial division. Although they have stated at every turn that forces will retain their operational independence, I do not feel that their proposals can even remotely achieve that. The political interference begins from the very start of the process, with the selection of candidates. Even if election expenses are capped, prospective candidates will have to invest money and raise their profiles across the force area, as well as picking up issues that will help with their campaigning.

Andrew Percy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Karl Turner: Not at the moment.
	The Government's proposals inevitably restrict the range of candidates to either those who are sufficiently rich or those with party political backing.  [ Interruption. ] Hon. Members are making comments from a sedentary position, but that happens to be a fact. The process of electing police and crime commissioners will be fraught with difficulty. It is not beyond the imagination of any Member of this House to see that the sensitive parameters of the commissioner's role and the importance of operational independence may be compromised, as candidates seek popular support on local law and order issues. Besides that, I feel that we are in danger of unrealistically raising the expectations of local communities about what a commissioner can truly achieve. That will serve only to undermine trust in police forces further.
	Once the polling has drawn to a close and the commissioner is in place, there is great potential for further problems to arise. There is an increasing risk that someone who has been elected will be reluctant to make an unpopular decision, regardless of its necessity. A prime example would be on the visibility of police officers, which is a particular concern to me. In my view, an elected commissioner would prioritise highly visible policing, such as policing to tackle antisocial behaviour, while less visible policing, such as policing to tackle organised crime, high-value electronic fraud and paedophile rings, would be left to one side. An elected commissioner would be faced with a stark choice: do they do what is in the best interests of getting re-elected, or do they do what is in the best interests of community safety? The Government's proposals mean that policing decisions will be made in people's narrow electoral interest, and not in the wider national interest. That is a concern supported by Sir Paul Stephenson, who stated that
	"we must ensure that this does not become just talking about popular visibility issues".
	The powers conferred on the commissioners, such as drawing up the police and crime plan, the firing of chief constables and the control of the budget, will give them a broad amount of control over operational matters. They will get to decide that visible crime such as antisocial behaviour is prioritised over invisible crime such as the criminality I discussed a few minutes ago.
	Bearing in mind the commissioners' wide-ranging powers and the party political nature of their election, I also have grave concern about the hijacking of these positions by extremists. Having one person in control of such a vast power, particularly in regard to law enforcement, will naturally attract those from the far right. To dismiss these concerns as "scaremongering" is both short-sighted and inappropriate. Twenty years ago, no one would have imagined the British National party sitting in the European Parliament. Despite not winning a parliamentary seat in this place at the last general election, its overall share of the vote increased.
	This Bill poses an important question for the future of this country's policing. We are faced with the choice of abandoning political independence and objective decision making for politicised choices made in the electoral interest. At stake in this Bill is the integrity of our police forces. Chief constables, such as the one in my area, are expressing concern about being forced to make cuts that will impact on front-line services. The Government must decide what they value most: is it to be the ill-thought-out, dangerous and costly policy or will they fund the police properly and ensure that front-line services are not affected?

Aidan Burley: Thus far in today's debate, we have heard some interesting comments about a wide-ranging Bill that covers increasing licensing powers, banning legal highs and ending the disgraceful occupation and vandalism of Parliament Square-a situation that it is hard to conceive would have been allowed to develop had people decided they wanted to set up a campsite on any other pavement or public square in the United Kingdom.

Michael Ellis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way so early in his remarks. Is he concerned, as I am, that the provisions to deal with the Parliament Square encampment will not receive Royal Assent until the end of July, which means that the royal wedding in April could still be subjected to the awful sight of this encampment in Parliament square?

Aidan Burley: I share the concerns of my hon. Friend, who makes a good point about the timing of this legislation and the effect or otherwise it will have on the royal wedding. We all heard the Prime Minister say that he hoped the encampment would be gone by April, so I look forward to seeing how this progresses. I understand that my hon. Friend has some ideas of his own, and he will no doubt inform the House of them at a later date.
	I would like to focus my remarks on the provisions around police and crime commissioners, the direct election of whom will, I believe, mark one of the most significant and positive changes to policing in our country. The Jack Daniel' s adverts currently on the tube billboards read: "No one built a monument to a committee"-and if they were intended to refer to police authority committees, it is not hard to imagine why. They are possibly the least effective, least visible bureaucracies in the public sector that I can think of-visible to just 7% of the UK public. I believe that the bold changes in the Bill will finally end governance by committee and instead enable transparent and accountable policing in this country.
	Opposition Members-not that there are many of them left in their places-have advanced a few arguments against police and crime commissioners today, and I would like to address, in order, the three main criticisms that have come out of the debate. First, the Opposition have argued that commissioners will cost more than police authorities; secondly, they have alleged that PCCs will interfere with the operational independence of chief constables; and, finally, they have said PCCs will do nothing to bring the police closer to the communities they serve. Indeed, the shadow Home Secretary has said that this Bill
	"goes against a 150 year tradition of keeping politics out of policing."
	The Opposition are mistaken on every single one of those counts, and I welcome the opportunity to explain why.
	Let me first turn my attention to the issue of cost. Implementation costs, which are the price of shifting from police authorities to police and crime commissioners, are expected to be £5 million. The forecast cost of holding elections every four years is £50 million, but the running costs of the police and crime commissioners and their panels are predicted to be the same as for the current police authorities. Opposition Members would do well to remember that when Labour was in power, increased spending of any kind was slavishly hailed as a sign of automatic improvement in public services. They would be well advised to think carefully before voting against this investment, which, contrary to most of the Labour Government's spending, will promote democracy, accountability and thrift.
	I cannot recall many Labour Members arguing against the price of democracy when introducing elections for regional assemblies or indeed when it came to Lord Prescott's proposals for regional government, which fortunately never made it through to the ballot box-although if they had, I am sure there would have been a price attached to them.
	Where police authorities are invisible, police and crime commissioners will be high profile; where police authorities fly below the radar of public scrutiny, PCCs will be held accountable; and where police authorities are divided, wasteful, bureaucratic and inefficient, PCCs will be firm of purpose and leaner in expense. The reality is that police authorities are a costly collection of committees that are simply no longer fit for purpose. They cost £65 million and taxpayers fund all the generous expenses and allowances that individual members claim. In the light of the rising costs, we simply cannot ignore the value of bodies that fail to hold police properly to account and are invisible to the people they claim to represent.
	Government Members need to counter the "scaremongering" myth pedalled by some that election costs for these commissioners will come out of already stretched local authority budgets. This is unfounded and inaccurate: they will be funded by the Home Office budget and, as I said earlier, it is not the intention that PCCs should cost more than existing police authorities. In fact, it is quite the opposite: the intention is to give much better value for money.
	Let me move on to the issue of independence. I agree with the Opposition's stance on maintaining the importance of operational independence. For this reason, I was pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice emphasise in September the need to maintain the operational independence of policing. He said that
	"someone has to hold the police to account. In my view that should be an elected politician. We cannot have the police answering to no one. Therefore what we are discussing is simply the nature of that accountability; but politicians will be involved in one way or another."-[ Official Report, 14 September 2010; Vol. 515, c. 241WH.]
	I believe that, far from interfering with operational independence and duty to act without restraint, I believe that this Bill will serve to improve it. Chief constables will have greater professional freedom to take operational decisions without fear or favour to meet the priorities set for them by their local community through their commissioner.
	The Opposition's charge of politicisation is, I am afraid, based on a fundamental misconception. The governance of policing is rightly, and by its nature, political. Deciding where to deploy limited resources is a political decision. Deciding whether to put officers in cars or on the beat is a political choice. Deciding whether they patrol in pairs or singly, on the same side of the street or the opposite side, is a political decision. As I mentioned earlier-I would have reiterated it later if the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) had accepted my intervention-when Tony Blair summoned all 43 chief constables to Downing street for a summit on knife crime to put political pressure on them to do something about the explosion of that crime, that was political interference, to use the words of Labour Members, with the police. It was entirely legitimate, however, because Tony Blair as a politician democratically representing the people of this country wanted to put pressure on our police to do something about a problem. It is precisely the same principle in the Bill.

Matthew Offord: Although my hon. Friend is right to mention the influence of the former Prime Minister Tony Blair in the context of the street crime initiative, I think that members of the shadow Cabinet are concerned about the fact that he intervened in other circumstances where we know he exerted influence. I am thinking of, for instance, the Serious Fraud Office and the investigation into British Aerospace. Will my hon. Friend confirm that Government Members will not accept such actions either?

Aidan Burley: I agree. Operational independence is about, for example, decisions to arrest people. No one is suggesting that we should give police and crime commissioners the power that Winston Churchill had in the Essex street siege to order police officers to arrest people, but I think it democratically legitimate for a police and crime commissioner to be elected on a mandate of, for instance, putting more police on the streets where they are visible and accountable, because that is what the public want. Over the past 10 years-indeed, throughout the 1980s and 1990s-there has been a move to put police officers in cars and say to their chief constables and senior officers, "This is my democratic mandate. We want more police on the streets. Tell me how you will achieve it." That does not strike me as interfering with operational independence.
	Let me now say something about transparency and accountability, both of which have been criticised by Opposition Members under whose Government any hint of either was lost in the mire of sofa government. Despite costs of between £52 million and £78 million a year, there is scant awareness, and therefore scant accountability, in relation to the authorities themselves, let alone their expenditure. Public input is exceedingly low. A significant proportion of police authorities received a meagre average of three letters or e-mails per week between 2007 and 2010.
	When asked by the Home Affairs Committee how one individual could improve police accountability, Kit Malthouse, London's effective police and crime commissioner, replied:
	"It allows there to be a kind of funnel for public concern. For instance, when I was appointed to this job in May 2008, and given the job title Deputy Mayor for Policing, the post bag at City Hall on community safety went from 20 or 30 letters a week up to 200 or 300. The letters just came and came."
	According to Louise Casey's 2008 crime and communities review, only 7% of the public are even aware that police authorities exist. According to MORI, however, 68% of people agree that a single person should be elected by local people to hold the police to account on behalf of the community.
	For too long the fight against crime has been caught up in red tape, which has created a gulf between law enforcement agencies and the communities that they serve. The shadow Home Secretary himself said in Cannock that the work of police authorities
	"isn't always as visible as it could be. Around police landscape, around accountability, there is more to do".
	If he opposes the Government's police reforms, may I ask what he proposes to do about that? Surely he cannot attack our plan without having a plan himself.
	Establishing commissioners will only serve to improve the alarming statistics that I have mentioned, and to raise the profile of the police force as a whole. It will enable us to turn our backs on a corrosive legacy that has done nothing to prevent the British public from being misinformed about, and unaware of, how to influence directly the strategy of policing in their areas. It is impossible to conceive that after just one term of police and crime commissioners, only 11% of police officers will still be visible and available, only 7% of the public will know how to contact their police and crime panels, and there will still be record dissatisfaction with the police despite the existence of a record number of them.
	Locally elected police commissioners will be transformative. They will ensure that the police concentrate on the crimes that most affect local people's quality of life. The existing top-down, target-ridden culture will be replaced by something altogether preferable: accountability to the public. The Home Affairs Committee's report concludes with the words:
	"Police and Crime Commissioners will be judged on whether they succeed in bringing the police closer to the public they serve."
	It is clear that the proposals for police and crime commissioners and their supporting panels will go a huge way towards achieving that aim.

Ann Clwyd: I oppose clause 151, which is entitled "Restriction on issue of arrest warrants in private prosecutions". I do so as chair of the Back-Bench all-party parliamentary human rights group, of which the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) is treasurer. I hope that my arguments will prevail on him, and that he too will see that to change the position in that regard would be invidious.

Tom Brake: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Ann Clwyd: Certainly. It appears that the hon. Gentleman has already changed his mind.

Tom Brake: I think that if the Director of Public Prosecutions, having taken on this responsibility, is given resources enabling him or her to process a request for an arrest warrant in a very short time, all the right hon. Lady's concerns may disappear. If they do not go away, will she explain why?

Ann Clwyd: I hope to, if I am able to develop my thoughts.
	Much of our criminal law is territorial, applying to acts committed in England and Wales or by British people, but we have agreed to prosecute those who commit crimes such as grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions Act 1957, torture and taking hostages here, wherever or by whoever those crimes are committed. That is universal jurisdiction intended by all the countries who accede to it to ensure that there is no international hiding place for perpetrators of grave crime. We have a duty to seek out the culprits, and either to extradite them or to prosecute them here. For example, in 2005 an Afghan warlord, Zardad, was successfully prosecuted in the United Kingdom for torture offences abroad.
	In the United Kingdom, it is not only the police who can initiate proceedings; any individual can apply to a magistrate for a summons or warrant to bring someone to court. The test for the magistrate is whether there is prima facie evidence of an offence on the part of the person named. Many cases involving serious offences cannot proceed beyond that stage without the Attorney-General's consent. I have a little experience of that, having chaired Indict, a human rights organisation which for seven years gathered evidence against Iraqi war criminals, many of whom are appearing in an Iraqi court or have already been sentenced. I have no time to go into what happened then, but in the current circumstances it is extremely difficult to obtain an arrest warrant. It took two years just to discuss the case of Tariq Aziz with the Attorney-General and with Scotland Yard. It was then thrown back to the Attorney-General, and we did not secure a decision. There was a strong possibility that Tariq Aziz, who travelled a good deal, had come to this country, perhaps to spend Christmas with George Galloway, who had spent Christmas with him in the past.
	We did not manage to obtain that arrest warrant. English law does not allow arrest warrants to be granted on flimsy evidence, but although our evidence was very strong indeed, we still could not obtain one. Only two of the 10 private arrest warrant applications made in the past 10 years have been granted. Nothing needs fixing, as nothing has been broken.
	Universal jurisdiction is a vital, agreed-on basis for tackling impunity in states that do not sign up to the International Criminal Court.

Andy Slaughter: My right hon. Friend clearly knows what she is talking about. I do not know whether she was as dismayed as I was by the fact that the Home Secretary clearly did not know what she was talking about when she was asked what standard of evidence the DPP would require. Is it the prima facie test, the full code test by the prosecutor, or something in between? Perhaps my right hon. Friend, like me, hopes that the Minister will clarify the matter in summing up the debate. If the answer is a full prosecutorial test, that effectively means that no warrants will ever be issued, because that standard of evidence will not have been gathered at the arrest stage.

Ann Clwyd: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing that point, on which I attempted to extract more information from the Home Secretary. I am afraid that I did not get an answer however, and I too hope this might be explained further in the summing up.
	The 1949 Geneva conventions require us to seek out and prosecute absolutely anybody suspected of committing war crimes. Similar duties exist under the torture convention, where we also have a duty to apply criminal law uniformly. A special legal or procedural system for those cases that is different from the rest of criminal law could breach that obligation. Victims securing the arrest of visiting suspects fulfil an important rule-of-law purpose. No state inference should bar their access to courts. As Lord Wilberforce said in 1978, the right to bring private prosecutions remains
	"a valuable constitutional safeguard against inertia or partiality on the part of the authority".
	Lord Diplock similarly described it as
	"a useful constitutional safeguard against capricious, corrupt or biased failure or refusal of those authorities to prosecute offenders against the criminal law".

Michael Ellis: Does the right hon. Lady not accept that many countries with similar legal systems to our own-Canada, for example-have established a similar system? In the Canadian context, the Attorney-General or deputy Attorney-General has to give leave before the exercise of their universal jurisdiction power. Many other countries have similarly fettered the misuse of universal jurisdiction, which has often taken the course of party political or other politically biased purposes, and they have not had any difficulties in respect of the point the right hon. Lady is making. Where Lord Diplock and others refer to interference of the state, they did not apply it to this test.

Ann Clwyd: I hope the hon. Gentleman will seek to catch Mr Speaker's eye, as he obviously has a speech in the making. I have experience of trying to get an indictment against some of the Iraqi war criminals in other countries such as Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Belgium. The closest we came to getting an indictment was in Belgium, but that was thwarted at the last moment because somebody brought an indictment against Sharon, and the Belgian Government changed the law. Sometimes the pressures can be very different, but we do not have time to go into the details of this now.

Andy Slaughter: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the difference between what is being proposed and what happens in Canada is that in Canada the DPP is entitled to appear and present evidence for or against the issuing of a warrant, but the decision is a judicial one? What is being proposed here is wholly different, although the hon. Member for Northampton North (Michael Ellis) perhaps does not understand that. The decision is made by the state, before the court has a chance to consider the matter.

Ann Clwyd: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's expert knowledge of this issue.
	Senior district judges are trusted to deal with highly sensitive terrorism and extradition cases. They are very highly thought of-I would like to hear anybody say they are not highly thought of-and their role should not be undermined, but that is precisely what the Government are attempting to do. These judges are known to have thrown out cases against Israeli Defence Ministers Mofaz in 2004 and Barak in 2009, plus several cases against Mugabe. Eight refusals out of 10 means the system is already robust enough to weed out illegitimate cases. Indeed, there is not a single example of the current system failing to filter out cases that are an abuse of process. What is the evidence that the judge acted wrongly in the two cases in question? Does the Crown Prosecution Service have a view? Perhaps we will hear.
	Some people are, of course, wildly exaggerating the real impact of the current law on them and officials from other countries. We know very well that many people from other countries who are currently in government-Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers and perhaps sometimes Defence Ministers-are free from any arrest warrants of this kind and can travel freely. In fact, absolute immunity applies to serving Presidents, Prime Ministers, Foreign Ministers and so forth, so I do not know what the problem is. It is a problem of the Government's own invention, and I am sorry my Front-Bench team seems to be going along with them at the moment along with their coalition partner-although the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington might like to indicate whether he has changed his mind again. I think they are misled and we do a disservice to the many people all over the world who have been injured in some way by some of the people who can clearly be identified as war criminals.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Nigel Evans: Order. Because so many Members wish to take part in this debate, the time limit is being reduced to eight minutes.

Paul Maynard: In the eight minutes available to me, I hope to cover two key issues that are of the utmost importance to my constituents: elected police commissioners, and the impact of alcohol in our town centres.
	I was grateful to the shadow Home Secretary for addressing in such detail the germination of policy among Conservative think-tanks down the years, as I have spent many a long hour in the twilit, striplit demi-monde of Conservative think-tanks listening to speaker after speaker talk about these ideas while drinking slightly warm orange juice and eating slightly stale croissants. I have to say that it was not initially an issue that particularly excited me. I did not feel inspired by the idea of elected police commissioners.
	It was only when I started talking to real people in the real world that I actually began to understand why there was such intense anger and frustration. During the Labour leadership contest over the summer, it was interesting to note that its participants had been agonising and soul-searching as to why the Labour party's core vote has wandered away. Might I suggest that the arrogance over law and order is at the heart of the reason?
	I am proud to represent the fourth most deprived Conservative-held seat in the country. There are many hard-working families on below-average incomes who routinely tell me how angry and frustrated they are at the disconnect they perceive between the police and the people. It is a growing gap. That saddens me, and it should sadden the police as well.
	I get much positive and valuable feedback about individual police officers at ward level and about individual police community support officers because of the social value they add to their local communities-whether a PCSO in a local school organising football on a Saturday morning or the local beat bobby who looks after a few of the elderly residents, checking they are okay. What I do not get positive feedback about, however, is the overall structure. People do not have a sense that when something goes wrong-when there is an act of social disorder in the street or a theft from the front garden-all they have to do is pick up the phone and someone at the end of the line will listen to their concern and a policeman will appear. That confidence has long since gone. That is a very great shame, as it is fundamental.
	What Sir Robert Peel said is being forgotten. We heard the Home Secretary quote Sir Robert Peel, so I thought I might offer my favourite Peel quote. He said that it is important
	"to recognise that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour."
	There can be no police without the support of the public, and I worry that that is in danger at present. That is why these reforms are so essential.
	My constituents do not know who to go to in order to make complaints. The police authority is not a constant presence in their life. In saying that, I do not criticise those well-meaning individuals who from a sense of public duty and public service serve on that authority, but it is a fact that police authorities are no longer fit for purpose. We need the focal point of a figurehead who can bring together all the disparate strands of crime reduction partnerships, community safety partnerships and police and communities together-PACT-meetings. Everything that goes on at a local level needs to be brought together by one individual.
	The same people who are expressing concerns about the disconnect between the police and the public are expressing concern about the impact of alcohol on the town centre. It is a sad fact that many elderly people in my constituency tell me that they are too scared to go into Blackpool town centre of an evening. That is a great tragedy because it is their town as much as anybody else's. I understand that when Labour Members brought in their reforms to licensing they wanted to create a continental style café culture. From their Tuscan palazzos, they had observed the intergenerational passeggiata and it had warmed their hearts. I think it is fair to say that the passeggiata and the café culture that they so admire on their summer holidays has yet to make it to Blackpool town centre on a Friday or Saturday evening.

Justin Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that if he could get a safer night-time economy, that would be a real boost to tourism in his town?

Paul Maynard: I agree entirely. The importance of the night-time economy is much misunderstood. It is not just about vertical drinking establishments, how many stags and hens we can cram into the town centre or about how much alcohol can be consumed. A town such as Blackpool has a much wider range of things to offer. We have an excellent theatre in the Grand theatre.

Andrew Percy: Does my hon. Friend agree that the implementation of the late-night levy will be incredibly effective in helping to address some of these problems? A 50:50 split between the police and the local authorities would mean that that local authorities, on a business improvement district-type model, could work with the local licensees to address the priorities. Most licensees are decent people who try to do a good job. Does he not agree that a 50:50 split would perhaps be better?

Paul Maynard: That is certainly an interesting point, and I hope that it will be explored more thoroughly in Committee. Many of the elderly people who would otherwise be keen to go to the Grand theatre for an evening's show do not do so because they do not want to have to form crocodiles for safety, weaving their way through the town centre to find a local taxi rank because they are scared.

Andrew Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Paul Maynard: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, because of the lack of time. I have given way twice already and I apologise to him.
	It is also important to understand that alcohol has a social impact. This is one of the great unresolved issues, certainly for me, politically. On the one hand, I believe in freedom of choice and the freedom of the individual. Alcohol is a perfectly legal substance. We should all be able to consume it in moderation, perfectly legally, without the forces of the state interfering with us. On the other hand, it is impossible to be the Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys and not to have a genuine understanding of the social cost of alcohol consumption in such a deprived area.
	Some of the statistics frighten me. Some 75% of all the domestic violence in Blackpool is linked to alcohol and 42% of the violent crime takes place in the three town centre wards. We are beyond saturation point when it comes to off-licences. In some of the town centre wards, such as Bloomfield, there is one off-licence for every 250 residents. To me, that is not so much a market as an oversupply. It is a market that is not functioning. We have 1,900 on-licensed premises supporting the hospitality industry. There must be freedom of choice, but there must be an understanding of the social cost of alcohol, too. That debate needs to take place.
	That is why I am such a supporter of the alterations to what is known as the vicinity test. I know that many in the alcohol trade are concerned about that change, which will allow many more people to put their views forward on the issues of granting extra licences. It will no longer apply just to the adjacent roads. Anyone from across the town will be able to have their say. That is a vital step forward.
	We need a much more mature and wider debate in this country about the role that alcohol plays in our lives. We need to understand how we can balance our freedoms with the need to protect the vulnerable. When I am walking around the streets of Blackpool, I understand why we are the national capital for liver disease, sad as that might be. I can see why we have a problem with domestic violence and violent crime. When I look at the number of alcoholic establishments outside my constituency office and the numbers crowding around of a Friday evening, I see the importance of trying to tackle underage drinking. I welcome the heftier penalties, but they need to be imposed.
	It is vital, however, that, in addition to tackling that problem, we recognise that the state can do only so much. We can try to tackle under-age drinking by imposing extra fines and closing down the off-licences that sell to the under-age people, but I do not think that the state can ever tackle issues such as proxy purchasing, where adults go into the off-licence on behalf of the child, or drinking at home.
	Unfortunately, there is only so much that the state can do, but none the less I welcome wholeheartedly the provisions proposed in the Bill as a sensible step forward and an example of how localism can work and how local authorities that have imagination and bravery can use legislative implements to improve the lives of their inhabitants. I hope that after this Bill is passed many more of my constituents will feel able to take back their town centre and to go into Blackpool and find out that it is not the scary place they read about in the local papers but somewhere in which they have a stake, as well as the stag parties, the hen nights and the day trippers. I believe that Blackpool is for the inhabitants of Blackpool as well as for the tourists.

Hazel Blears: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this Second Reading debate on what I believe to be a very important Bill. The issues are close to my heart, not just because, like the policing Minister, I struggled with the tension between visibility, accountability and performance for the three years for which I was policing Minister, but because I know how important those things are to my constituents in Salford and Eccles and to communities across the country.
	There is undoubtedly a problem with the visibility and accountability of police authorities. I believe that the public are entitled to know much more clearly who is responsible for setting policing priorities as well as ensuring that chief constables address the issues that are important to local people in an effective way that achieves the best value for money. It is a complex set of tasks for any police service, but over the past few years we have done pretty well. We need to do more, however. Having a safe community not only transforms life for ordinary people but affects business, investment and economic transformation, and that is why it is so important.
	Let me make it clear that I believe that if local people are given the chance to elect their police representatives, they will do so sensibly and rationally and that the spectre of their electing an extremist candidate is unlikely. It is the responsibility of people like us, in this House and elsewhere, to ensure that, in any direct elections, we get involved, campaign on a proper platform, reflect the people's priorities, offer political leadership and support our citizens in making their democratic choices. I have always trusted the public and they often-in fact, nearly always-get it right.
	I have real concerns, however, about the idea of electing a single individual who is not connected to the rest of the local governance arrangements for the provision of public service. I would be interested to hear from the Minister when he responds to the debate whether he has really considered that issue. Evidence shows that what has worked in policing in the past few years is the integration of services-for example, in family intervention projects and tackling antisocial behaviour-and joint working between agencies, particularly between police and the criminal justice system. On Friday, I visited a new pilot in Greater Manchester of intensive alternatives to custody, which involves embedding police officers with probation and family support workers-again, involving integrated services. Approaches such as the co-location of key staff and the sharing of data have been part of the direction of travel that has led to effective policing.
	That is the direction in which all public services are moving. As part of the previous Government, I started the Total Place work to bring all public services together. It is called community budgeting under this Government. I do not mind what it is called, but it is the most effective way to provide services. It is designed to break down barriers, integrate staff, set joint priorities, pool budgets and get more for less. If the move to having a single, elected police and crime commissioner means setting the police apart from the rest of that system, I honestly believe it will be a seriously retrograde step.

Louise Bagshawe: Does the right hon. Lady agree that the call for elected police commissioners came precisely because the public do not feel that the current system, integrated or not, is serving them? Is not there a need for the public to have a single voice?

Hazel Blears: Indeed, and I am about to put forward an idea that would meet many of those concerns. One way of achieving the greater visibility for policing that the hon. Lady talks about would be having a directly elected person in each local authority area who would be responsible for local policing but would also have a duty to operate within the rest of the local public service framework to mobilise all those resources to make communities safer. Those directly elected local commissioners could act collectively at force level to hold chief constables to account and to provide direct, local links to their communities. I am genuinely concerned about the ability of a single police and crime commissioner to be visible and accountable to 2.5 million people across Greater Manchester in communities as diverse as those in Rochdale, Wigan, Stockport, Oldham, Manchester city centre and Salford. I wonder whether the Minister has considered having directly elected local commissioners. There is all the rhetoric about localism, but then this policy of having a single police and crime commissioner for millions of people. That is not localism.

Stewart Jackson: Is not the right hon. Lady effectively making the case for an elected official for each basic command unit? In such a system there would not be co-ordination between different parts of Greater Manchester, because those people would compete with one another for resources and to work and co-operate with other state agencies. That would be a recipe for duplication, expense and confusion.

Hazel Blears: It is a difficult circle to square and I shall suggest how we might address some of those issues. There is no perfect system, but I do not believe that having a single person who is supposed to be visible and accountable to millions of people will work.
	I understand that the police and crime panels, which are to be made up of local authority representatives and which will be remarkably similar to the police authorities that have been criticised for their lack of visibility, will have the power to advise and scrutinise the work of commissioners, but would it not be better if those local representatives were elected and therefore had a direct local mandate and accountability? I am very concerned that there will be a lack of consistency between the plans and strategies of local authorities and the health service, plans on tackling drugs and the possible crime plans of the police and crime panels. The local reps could come together and pool the sovereignty of their elected mandates to consider issues of serious, organised and trans-border crime-issues that are properly the concern of whole force areas. Currently, there is concern that police and crime commissioners will concentrate almost solely on very local issues, because of the electoral impetus, and that they might ignore some trans-force, serious and organised crime issues as well as national priorities.
	It is inevitable that commissioners will be pressed to prioritise local, visible neighbourhood policing. I do not argue against that, as there is no greater advocate in the House than me of neighbourhood policing. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough (Mr Blunkett) and I drove a culture change through the police service to ensure that neighbourhood policing was properly valued and rewarded. Hon. Members will remember that 10 years ago the sexy end of the police business was going out in the squad car with the blues and twos blazing and a helicopter circling overhead. People thought that was real policing. It was not entirely dissimilar from Gene Hunt's kind of policing and it took a great deal of effort to bring the police back to tackling antisocial behaviour, closing crack houses and tackling prostitution on our estates. That was the really important part of policing for local people. I believe that the police get that now and know that being visible in their communities is hugely important to restoring and improving local people's confidence, but we still need to keep the pressure on to make sure that that happens.
	Some crime is not immediately visible to people on the streets, but is hugely important to address-whether it is counter-terrorism, serious and organised crime, the emerging problems of cybercrime, drug enforcement or tackling knife and gun crime. All that work needs to be done. The Home Secretary can talk about the national policing priorities in the Bill, but there is no provision for those second-tier regional priorities. In my own area, Salford, we have just had a fantastic operation called Operation Gulf, which entailed the long-term surveillance of organised crime gangs, using a range of powers-not police powers, particularly, but bringing in, for example, the Department for Work and Pensions to examine tax and benefits fraud, working with the Security Industry Agency, and investigating illegal protection rackets and pubs that have been used for organised crime. All that is not immediately visible to people on the street, but it is tackling those serious criminals who are role models for many of my young people. It is about confiscating their assets, and it is long-term police work that costs money. I worry enormously that a police commissioner will not give that the priority that it needs.
	In the short time left to me, I shall say a word about the people whom we ask to carry out all that work on our behalf. We spent a long time trying to get a proper skill mix within our police service, recognising that we do not need fully warranted officers to do every single job in the service. Peter Fahy, the chief constable of Greater Manchester, has been a tremendous champion of work force modernisation. When I met him last week, he was desperately worried that with the very severe cuts that we have to make in such a short period of time, the people who will be most vulnerable are the PCSOs and the civilian staff who, because of their employee status, can be made redundant, unlike police officers.
	I worry that we will go backwards, rather than forwards. We have got police officers away from being escort officers, custody officers or scenes-of-crime officers, and we have got them on the front line. As a result of cutting so quickly and so deeply, we will find uniformed officers again in the back-office doing file preparation or escort duties. That is utterly ludicrous. It is a backward step which will lead to much less effectiveness in our service. Our chief constable must get rid of 3,000 people over the next four years. He has said publicly that that will affect front-line policing. As a result of the speed at which it needs to be done and the arcane employment regulations in the police service, we will find ourselves making the wrong decisions about effectiveness.
	The public will judge success not simply by elections. They will judge it by what happens on their streets and in their communities. If they can go to bed at night and not wake up with the fear of being burgled, if they can get up in the morning and find that their car has not been slashed and trashed, that will be the sign of success. Accountability, as commissioners will find, will be a pretty tough thing.

Neil Carmichael: I begin by paying tribute to the police in my constituency, who have been helping to deal with the protests over tuition fees. We have had a few minor actions and in each case the police have demonstrated fantastic support.
	It has been a great pleasure listening to the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears). She is heading in the right direction, though not far enough and certainly not fast enough. It is right that we consider the question of accountability in the policing of Britain.
	Let us talk first about the commissioners. It is important that they are elected, that there is just one of them, and that they are responsible for planning, as outlined in the Bill. The electorate want an interface with a single person who will speak on their behalf and deal with the issues that arise in everyday policing. My one concern about the disqualification list is whether a recently retired chief constable is the right person to be elected as a commissioner. That needs to be discussed in Committee.
	I listened carefully to the shadow Home Secretary. He mentioned Councillor Rob Garnham, the chairman of my police authority in Gloucestershire. Councillor Garnham is well known, probably because he has launched a campaign to save police authorities, not because of the work he did as chairman of the police authority. I believe that the membership and function of police authorities are not properly understood by the electorate. We could test that by asking people who they think is on their police authority. Some people would look rather surprised. They certainly would not be able to provide an answer, because the police authority is just not recognised as the equipment for maintaining police accountability.
	It is right to introduce commissioners, and it is right to get rid of police authorities. It is also necessary to improve value for money in our police forces, because police authorities have just not exercised that function terribly well. I heard only today just how many police forces buy the same equipment from the same old firm, without going through proper competitive tendering, driving down the price or saying, "If you don't do a better price, we'll go somewhere else." The process is too sloppy, and it needs to be tightened up.
	The Bill includes some other interesting areas, one of which is licensing and the role of local communities and local authorities, because it is important to ensure that decisions are properly enforced locally. That is one of the key things. Local authorities already have a useful set of powers, but the question is about ensuring that they are deployed and that the decisions are made to stick.
	The Localism Bill will enhance the role of the community, so we need to link it to the Bill before us. We have to engineer a change not just in powers, but in culture, so that local authorities are keen to make decisions properly, to be ambitious, to work hard for their communities and to be ready to make different decisions from their neighbours' and more interesting decisions for themselves.
	On the cost of drink, I am sympathetic to higher prices, because it is important that we deal with binge drinking. One can go to France to buy cheap beer-there it is, at LeClerc, the local supermarket. One can also buy lots of cheap wine, so other countries have cheap drink, but the French, for example, do not have much binge drinking. There is something to be discussed, and we need to look at the causes of binge drinking, because it is a cultural issue.

Andrew Griffiths: My hon. Friend knows that 70% of all alcohol sold in this country is sold through supermarkets. Is not the danger that all the measures before us put extra burdens on pubs, which have to deal with the consequences? The Minister will say that supermarkets can be controlled within the late-night levy, but the problem is clearly not supermarkets selling alcohol after 12 o'clock, but people buying alcohol at 6 o'clock in the evening and drinking it before they go out. The pubs and clubs then have to deal with the consequences. Do we not need to tackle binge drinking and supermarkets' irresponsible pricing if we are to tackle the problem of alcohol-fuelled violence?

Neil Carmichael: That is why I am sympathetic to dealing with the problems in supermarkets. My hon. Friend is right: we do have cheap booze; it is bought in bulk; it is consumed in a bingey way, which does cause huge problems; and we have to address the issue.
	We had a debate about pubs last week, but let us repeat the point that we must recognise the pub as a useful, controlled environment in which people can drink.

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech, but following the previous intervention does he not agree that alcohol sold in supermarkets is often bought by people who cannot otherwise afford it? Surely, the only restrictions should therefore be on so-called alcopops and drinks like that.

Neil Carmichael: I thank my hon. Friend and appreciate all the interventions-the two of them, at least-that I have had. He makes a good point about alcopops, and we need to think about that, because we can be too draconian, but I shall make three general points about drinks. First, we have to think about binge drinking and its causes; secondly, we need to look at the role of supermarkets in supplying the drink; and, thirdly, we need to bear in mind the strength of the drink.

Richard Fuller: My hon. Friend is making some very important points about the balance of responsibility for binge drinking. Does he agree that the burden of the balance of responsibility is placed unduly on the pubs and not sufficiently on the supermarkets? Regulation focuses on the pubs and there is insufficient regulation of the supermarkets. Does he think that this is an opportunity to redress that balance?

Neil Carmichael: Funnily enough, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. When one considers the number of regulations and bureaucratic requirements that a pub has to fulfil, we wonder why people want to be landlords. They do so because they enjoy the job and do a great thing for communities, but they are often discouraged from getting on with the job because of all the work that they have to do. My hon. Friend is right about supermarkets. If we consider the abolition of the resale price maintenance and the relentless march of supermarkets in number and size over the past few years, we realise that supermarkets are not controlled as much as they should be. We need to consider some sort of ombudsman system to ensure that supermarkets have a more responsible approach to drinking.
	The other thing about supermarkets is that they are quite powerful. They are able to control price, and supply and demand. We must recognise that. As a farmer, I remember being told what prices my products would be simply because the group of five supermarkets concerned knew in advance how much they would pay. Let us remember that supermarkets have power and let us be prepared to address the question of binge drinking with that in mind. However, we should also have in mind the restrictions and problems that pubs have been confronting over the past few years.
	In summary, let us be confident about the role of the commissioners. Government Members think that they are a great thing and one Labour Member obviously supports that direction of travel. We must accept that our police authorities do not set the world on fire in discussing policing policy, and we must think very carefully about value for money and ensuring that police forces are much more responsive to people's needs. Is it not simply right for local communities to feel that they are being listened to? Sometimes just the act of listening can lift a huge amount of confusion and alarm from local communities, who are often bewildered by other more complicated arrangements for expressing themselves. The Bill is good. It is the right kind of measure and it is consistent with localism and with law and order. Above all, it is consistent with setting a useful agenda for responsible behaviour in our society.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) was absolutely right in saying that the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) was making an excellent speech. He did make an excellent speech-not just in his comments on alcohol-related crime, but in what he said about procurement-and it is a pleasure to follow him. If ever there is a vacancy on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, I hope that he will apply to join us because his speech was really excellent. I will speak very briefly, as all hon. Members must, and will make just four points. I agree with much of the Bill, as many of its provisions reflect the Home Affairs Committee's recommendations in the previous Parliament.
	As the House knows, 50% of crime in this country is alcohol related. All hon. Members who have spoken on that subject have talked about the effect that alcohol-related crime has on local communities in their town centres, and the enormous amount of police resources that have to deal with it. The Government have taken a very important step in terms of licensing. I was reassured during my intervention on the Home Secretary when she said that the Government would continue to consider the issue of minimum pricing. Tonight's speeches reflect the fact that there is concern not necessarily about the pubs and clubs in our town centres, but about the supermarkets.
	If one goes to Asda or Morrisons-I am not suggesting that hon. Members on either side of the House may choose to do this; the Chamber may be about to empty-one can get 36 cans of lager for £18, or about 50p a can. [Hon. Members: "How do you know?"] I do not drink alcohol, but one of my researchers looked into this over the weekend. There is no doubt that it is cheaper to buy alcohol in supermarkets. As we heard earlier, people get tanked up before they go out because of the very cheap cost of alcohol there. I am glad that the Government are doing something about minimum pricing, and we look forward to seeing what they do.

Andrew Griffiths: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that when one can go to a supermarket and buy a can of strong lager more cheaply than a can of Coca-Cola, that sends out an extremely damaging message to young people? That is why so many young people are pre-loading. Before they go out for an evening, they drink far too much, and we see the effects on our high streets, in our police cells and in our emergency units.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, although some may say that drinking Coca-Cola is almost as bad for young people as drinking alcohol.
	My second point is about drugs. The Government are taking absolutely the right powers in the Bill to be able to ban legal highs. Mephedrone-commonly known as meow meow-has been a big problem. The Select Committee heard very eloquent evidence from the mother of a young girl who had died as a result of a legal high. It was clearly taking too long to ban such substances, so we warmly welcome putting into the hands of the Home Secretary the power to be able to bring a statutory instrument before the House to deal with these matters.
	I also warmly welcome what has been proposed about Parliament square, especially after what happened last Thursday.

Julian Huppert: On the subject of drugs, does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that the Bill has some suggestion of weakening the role of scientific input? I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but does he agree that it might be helpful to secure that aspect and to ensure that in the case of any temporary bans, there are at least some scientific suggestions before the decision is made?

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman, who is the resident scientist on the Home Affairs Committee, is right to point to the need for evidence-based decisions and the role of science.
	My final point concerns police commissioners. Two members of the Select Committee are here-my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and the hon. Member for Cambridge (Dr Huppert)-and other Members have spoken about this. There was no agreement in the Committee on whether elected police commissioners were a good idea, and we therefore put it to one side. We were more concerned with producing a report that would be helpful to the House before this debate and would enable Members to look at the implications and practicalities of elected commissioners.
	The Committee asked the Government and the House to note three points, the first of which-it was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud-was whether it was desirable for a chief constable who was serving in a certain area subsequently to stand for the post of an elected commissioner. We thought that there should be a cooling-off period so that if the chief constable for Leicestershire, for example, wanted to be a commissioner he-it is a man at the moment-could not do so until his whole term of four years had expired. There was unanimity on these points. We hope that the Government will consider this and that others will do so if they are lucky enough to serve on the Bill Committee.
	The Select Committee's second point concerned the cost of commissioners. I noted the exchange between those on the Front Benches about special advisers. Of course, I accept what the policing Minister has said. We need to be very careful about costs, especially those associated with the crime panels. I do not agree that those bodies should be elected, but they should be representative. As the Select Committee said, they should comprise those who have already been elected to represent district areas. It is important that they are as representative of the local community as possible, with the right to appoint independent members to deal with the issue of gender and ethnicity balance, which may be lacking in relation to elected representatives.
	The final point relates to operational independence. The hon. Member for Rochester and Strood (Mark Reckless) is not here, but he is the Committee's leading expert on operational independence. The Committee felt that the time had come for a clear definition of where the responsibilities of the commissioner begin, where those of the chief constable end, and where those of the Home Office impact on the new responsibilities. We suggested not a Magna Carta, but a charter or a memorandum to set out those powers and responsibilities. We think that this is an appropriate time for that so that there is clarity. I hope that when hon. Members discuss this matter in Committee, they will find a way forward on such a memorandum of understanding.
	Every local authority is different: Leicestershire is different from Bedfordshire, Bedfordshire is different from Cambridgeshire, and Greater Manchester is different from Birmingham. This is not Gotham city-I am sure that you were a fan of Batman and Robin, Mr Deputy Speaker. Commissioner Gordon will not put the light up in the air so that Batman-the equivalent, I suppose, of the chief constable-comes rushing forward to solve the crime. If only it were as easy as that. I am sure that there would be mobile phones in any new series of Batman. The fact is that these are complicated issues.
	If we take the party politics out of this matter and analyse the discussions that we have had today, including the contributions of my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) and other hon. Members from both sides of the House, I am sure that we can make some progress. I hope that progress can be made in Committee on accountability and on the other important issues that have been mentioned today.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to speak in this important debate on a Bill that will fulfil many Conservative manifesto commitments, namely electing police commissioners and tackling the antisocial behaviour that is caused by excessive drinking in some of our towns. It is a pleasure to follow the Chair of the Home Affairs Committee for the second time in a week. I found myself losing concentration thinking how wonderful it would be to be able to summon Batman to tackle the crime in our towns, but I sense that that solution is not possible.
	I will start with the less high-profile measures in the Bill and leave police commissioners for the end of my small amount of time. Even areas such as mine, which lack a large city and its attendant problems, face the problems of alcohol-induced antisocial behaviour in the early mornings; people finding back routes home from the pub that take them past people's houses, where they disturb people with their noise; and people's frustration when they are not allowed to object to a licence because a vicinity test does not quite work. The reforms on those matters are greatly to be welcomed.
	We must be careful that in the well-meaning attempt to tackle these problems, we do not create a different problem or use the proverbial sledgehammer to crack the nut. An example is the late night levy, which is an important measure and a great tool for councils. My understanding of the Bill is that if a council such as mine introduces the late night levy, it has to do so for the whole borough. My seat contains three towns, so all three towns would be included and not just the one where there might be a problem. We could therefore end up imposing a provision that is not required on establishments that are completely responsible and in areas where there is no issue to be tackled. Perhaps that point can be addressed in Committee so that the words achieve what we want them to.

Andrew Griffiths: rose-

Nigel Mills: I am sorry, time is too limited.
	Police commissioners, as the hon. Member for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) said, are not something that one reads about and at once thinks, "Oh, marvellous." People do not come to our surgeries and say that they want a police commissioner by May 2012. However, when one works through the ideas and looks at the problems that we are trying to tackle, it is clear that constituents feel divorced from the police. Perhaps unfairly, they think that the police are not accountable to them and are not doing what people want. In comparison, people are usually quite happy with the safer neighbourhood team with which they associate. There is a general view that the police are happily sitting behind desks or racing around in cars, rather than doing policing. That is a real problem that we need to tackle, because we all believe in policing by consent.
	No one is arguing that we do not need some kind of authority or body to hold the police to account. We would not want to leave it to the chief constable to do whatever he felt like. We all accept that there have to be policing priorities. We cannot have police everywhere doing everything on every issue all the time. It is right that when difficult choices have to be made, there is some democratic accountability.
	No Member has argued tonight that police authorities are a great success. I imagine that most of my constituents would struggle to name a single member of their police authority, and I do not recall an election leaflet saying, "This guy's been on the police authority for the past four years. Hasn't it been terrible? You should vote him out because of his record on that". It just does not happen.
	Nobody appreciates or values what police authorities do, and despite the costly newspaper that appears through my door every so often, nobody really understands what on earth they are for. There is a vacuum, and I cannot imagine that the way to fill it is through each district electing its own commissioner and all of them coming together to try to agree on something. I cannot see that working. The right answer has to be to elect an individual whom the public will recognise. People will understand that that is the person who is there to be accountable and to whom they can complain. That is the person to blame, who can set the strategy that the police force will follow. People will know that if it does not work, they can vote that person out four years later. That has to be the right way forward.
	I do have some concerns about the electoral system for police commissioners included in the Bill. It is a bit strange that we will have a referendum next year to decide how we elect our MPs, yet we have jumped almost to the other side of that debate in the Bill. I might have preferred us to use the same electoral system for commissioners as for MPs. That would be far more understandable for the public.
	I understand the argument that the method proposed will ensure that we do not end up with an extremist person having a commissioner's power by mistake on a flukily low vote, but frankly, I would trust the people of Derbyshire not to end up in that situation. Those of us who represent a seat where there are British National party councillors can be a little nervous about that, but we can trust the people to elect a responsible person as commissioner. They will see that it is a very important job, and it will be valued, so I do not think people will do unfortunate things with their vote.
	I wholeheartedly welcome the Bill. It meets a whole load of the promises that we made at the election, and it will be a great step forward in bringing the police back closer to the people. We should all welcome that wholeheartedly.

Stephen McCabe: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), which is becoming a regular occurrence. We seem to be making quite a habit of it.
	I am not sure that I share the hon. Gentleman's views on police commissioners, because I believe, as Conservatives used to believe, in the old maxim, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it". That is why I have real doubts about police commissioners. I invite any Conservative Member to show me a recent inspection report that raised major concerns about the functioning of police authorities. I am not saying that there are not things that we could deal with, but there have not been major concerns.
	Even if there is some merit in the idea, I should like to know what the hurry is, especially at a time when we have so many other matters to contend with, such as massive cuts in the police budget, increasingly violent demonstrations, renewed terrorist threats and, I believe, a likely explosion in crime, especially if the Secretary of State of Justice gets his way and we have reduced prison capacity and reduced community justice budgets. I do not see the urgency at all. The Home Secretary said earlier that the money is not coming from police budgets, but surely the question is why she thinks she has any money to fritter away on non-essentials at a time like this.
	I can see the reasons for the London arrangements in the Bill, because the Mayor doubles as the commissioner. However, little thought seems to have been given to the situation in other parts of the country that could also have powerful directly elected mayors. What will be the situation there, especially if there is a fundamental disagreement between the mayor and the commissioner? If I read the Bill correctly, a commissioner could well be nearly six months into his or her first term before their first policing plan was signed off. That does not sound like a model of urgency or efficiency. What would happen if a chief constable were profoundly to disagree with elements of the plan? That could be a recipe for stalemate.
	We want the public to feel more engaged with the process, but, as I read the Bill, the police and crime commissioner will determine the manner in which their response to any recommendations on or criticism of their plan is published. That obviously means that they could choose to bury the parts to which they do not want to give exposure. Equally, I understand that they will be allowed to publish the plan itself as they see fit. If the idea is to ensure that people become more engaged with this process, I would have thought that the commissioners should be urged to publish the plan in a way that guaranteed maximum public access to it, rather than in the way that they see fit.
	As this Bill begins its parliamentary route, we still have no idea what the salaries or pensions of the police and crime commissioners will be. Nor do we know anything about the salaries of the chief executives or the chief finance and accounting officers, but if they are anything like their equivalents in Birmingham, those people are going to be earning salaries greater than that of the Prime Minister, and I am not sure that that would be very smart at a time like this.
	I welcome some of the measures in the Bill, particularly those relating to licensing powers. It is a good idea to give communities greater input and to listen to their representations and calls for the review of a licence. I shall be interested to see how that works, however, because my experience of licensing authorities is that they do not always pay anything like sufficient attention to local communities. I also welcome the doubling of the maximum fine for those who persistently sell alcohol to under-18s, and the increase in the period of suspension of the licence for premises involved in that activity. What most people want, however, is for the licence to be permanently revoked from premises that are persistently causing trouble and selling alcohol to under-18s.
	I am slightly worried by what might be an unintended consequence of the powers for licensing authorities to impose conditions on a temporary event notice on environmental or health grounds. In a place such as Birmingham, that could result in the local authority tying good, honest charity events up in ridiculous bureaucracy and red tape. That must surely be an unintended consequence of the Bill that we would not wish to see.
	I think it was the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) who referred to clause 15, which covers the power to commission the supply of goods from any source. That sounds good on the surface, but what will be the safeguards against illegal favours or monopoly arrangements? That is not the sort of thing I want to see. I also wonder about the powers in clause 16 for the commissioner to appoint persons who are not on the staff of the local policing body. I am sure that that is intended to deal with joint appointments, but it could be a consultants' charter. I notice that clause 22(3) gives the Home Secretary the power to intervene if the budget is set too low and could endanger public safety. If this is such a good Bill, and if we can be so confident about the performance of police and crime commissioners, why would she have to take a power like that? It suggests to me that the Government have their own concerns about this matter.
	Much in the Bill requires far more scrutiny in Committee. The Government need to explain a lot to reassure us that, while some of the measure's intentions are good, its practice will not prove wrong.
	For me, the centrepiece of the measure is the wrong policy at the wrong time, which, I fear, will lead to the wrong outcomes. The Government's focus should be on preventing a rise in crime, helping victims and safeguarding our communities. It should not be on political experiments that waste money, risk politicising the police and take attention away from the need to bear down constantly on violent offenders and career criminals.

Robert Halfon: I welcome the Bill and the debate. I have four substantial points to make: where there is direct democracy and policing elsewhere in the world, it works; we must do more to support special constables; we must tell the truth about crime in our statistics; and universal jurisdiction must be reformed so that the Director of Public Prosecutions has control over issuing warrants.
	We have rehearsed the arguments about police commissioners this evening. I am a passionate support of the policy because I believe that local people should have some say in the policing they want for their neighbourhood. The public want that-they are unhappy with police authorities. Extremist groups have not taken control of the police in north America, where there has been no great backlash against democracy.
	I want mainly to speak about special constables. I have long believed that we must do more to support them and make them into a reserve force, like the Territorial Army or reserve firemen. Since 1997, the number of specials has fallen dramatically from 20,000 to fewer than 14,000. I have tabled three early-day motions on the issue-1160, 598 and 520. I also raised it at business questions last Thursday, and welcomed the Leader of the House's response.
	I am grateful to the Minister for Policing and Criminal Justice, who previously agreed with me in the House that there is huge untapped potential for recruiting more specials, who are in many ways like neighbourhood watch: a genuinely local force and a vital source of community intelligence.
	One suggestion is to allow councils to discount council tax for those who become specials. That would act as an incentive and fit in with the Government's big society proposals. The Association of Chief Police Officers supports the idea and Southampton city council has already trialled a scheme, which offered special constables a rebate rather than an up-front discount on their council tax. However, because of the legal uncertainties, the process took months and was only a one-off. At the end of the debate, I intend to table an amendment to clause 10(3) to make such action much easier for our colleagues in local government.
	Under the new duty to co-operate, I would like the Bill to clarify that local authorities are free to co-operate with police forces, if they choose, by exempting special constables from council tax, or, at the very least, offering them a substantial discount. That does not have to be expensive. Essex is lucky to have nearly 700 specials. If each was offered £100 off their council tax bill, it would cost the grand sum of £70,000. Given that the public sector spent £10 billion in Essex last year, £70,000 is not an astronomical sum. I hope that the Minister and colleagues will be able to consider my amendment.
	We must tell the truth about crime in our statistics. There is huge bureaucratic and political pressure to say that crime is decreasing. Everyone wants to believe that things are getting better. However, the tragedy is that that translates into immense personal pressure on individual police officers not to record crime because if they go out on the streets and find criminals their statistics look worse and worse. I recently met the Home Secretary and the chief constable of Essex to discuss crime in Harlow, and the chief constable made that point powerfully. One solution is to record two sorts of statistic. An innovative proposal is to use the Australian system and distinguish between crimes that the public have reported and those that the police have discovered.
	Imagine if instead of one single box for recording crime, where everything gets jumbled and mixed together, we had two boxes. In the first box we could measure crime reported by the public, police officers and PCSOs, and in the second we would measure crime proactively discovered by the police. If the number of the latter crimes increased, we would not worry unduly, because it would mean that the police were doing their job, patrolling the streets and uncovering the hidden criminals who are disrupting our neighbourhoods.
	I sincerely hope that when we consider that reform, we consider how to free our police officers from the immense political pressure to say that crime numbers are coming down. I welcome the reforms to public information, such as crime maps, which the Government are pushing for, and measures such as clause 89, "Crime and disorder strategies", and clause 34, which contains the duty to liaise with local people. However, I hope that the Minister considers the Australian system of recording crime.
	Finally, I believe that universal jurisdiction must be reformed so that the Director of Public Prosecutions has control over issuing warrants. Currently, the process for private prosecutions is being abused-it is used as a political tool for campaigning and point scoring-but the purpose of our justice system must be justice, not media campaigns. Therefore, I welcome clause 151, which will ensure that universal jurisdiction cases proceed only on the basis of solid evidence.

James Clappison: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that there is evidence that the current process was abused in the past, and that it got in the way of peaceful discussions and an understanding of different points of view?

Robert Halfon: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The problem is that the current arrangements have been used as a political tool. A disproportionate number of arrest warrants sought for war crimes are directed at Israeli officials and politicians. It is worth remembering that Israel is a democratic country with the rule of law, and that it has a thriving judiciary and a Supreme Court that often rules against the state in cases with sound legal bases. If we want to promote peace in the middle east, Israel's leaders must be able to come to Britain for talks with the British Government. The current misuse of universal jurisdiction actually hinders reconciliation efforts. That applies not just to Israel-for example, I understand that an arrest warrant was issued against Henry Kissinger.
	In conclusion, I am hugely supportive of the Bill. The more democracy, the better. I hope that the Minister and colleagues consider my amendment on special constables and reforming the flaws in our crime statistics, but I welcome the Government's reforms, especially on universal jurisdiction and elected police commissioners. The Bill is in the same vein as all the Government's policies and can be summed up in four words: power to the people.

Stephen Lloyd: I pay tribute to many who have spoken this evening, including my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon), who made a number of rational and intelligent suggestions in respect of the Australian system that I have not heard before, which I commend.
	I also pay tribute to the police force in my constituency. I work closely with it, and spoke with the operational commander on Sunday morning. The force is swift, efficient and effective, as it has been for quite a few years, and it is very targeted, so it is no surprise that crime rates have gone down.
	I support a charity called Families Fighting for Justice, which came to my attention in a rather unusual way. A constituent of mine sadly suffered two tragedies in her family-her children were brutally murdered-and as she went through that process, she felt that the system supported the perpetrator far more than the victim. I need tell no one in the House how appallingly bleak it must be for any parent to lose a child, but to lose two is beyond compare. Through meeting her I did a lot of research and came across the charity Families Fighting for Justice. I do not agree with everything it wants, but a number of the issues it is interested in and has been pushing concern the flippant guilty pleas that change just as a person gets to court. This Bill could begin to address issues where perpetrators have been perceived as getting away with murder-to coin a phrase-and level the playing field more. Speaking on behalf of Families Fighting for Justice, I think that the Bill is taking a step in the right direction for people such as my constituent who have been through such tragic circumstances.
	I fully support the Bill. The key thing is that it will improve police accountability, allow the Home Secretary to react quickly to the constantly evolving criminal narcotics industry and tackle some of the root causes of antisocial behaviour. It covers some broad strategic issues that hon. Members on both sides of the House have tackled, but I would like to concentrate on antisocial behaviour, which might be seen as a relatively minor issue. I come from a family of police officers-an uncle, grandfather and great grandfather were policemen. So there has been a considerable number of policemen in my family. If it is any consolation, they are mostly supporters of the party of my coalition colleagues-but bless them. They are relatives, and I love them dearly.
	I have always supported and had a great interest in the police force. I suppose that I might be termed as being on the robust wing of the Liberals. I am aware, as all MPs are from their constituency experience, that antisocial behaviour is appalling, particularly in disadvantaged areas where it is possible for one close or cul-de-sac to contain just one or two families who make life a misery for everyone. I have always been very strong on that. In fact, I was supportive of the broken window policy started in New York by Mayor Giuliani a few years ago through an elected police commissioner. He started dealing with crime at its root causes-for instance, broken windows and graffiti-and coming down on them very hard. As a result, the bigger crimes also began to reduce.
	Antisocial behaviour in all its forms, especially at night, can be devastating for those it affects, which is why I am glad that part 2 of the Bill will amend the Licensing Act 2003 to shift the balance of power from pubs and clubs to local authorities and, more importantly, local communities. As is well known, a significant proportion of antisocial behaviour has alcohol at its root. I was stopped yesterday by a constituent in Eastbourne, which I hasten to add is a paragon of peace-it is also the sunniest town in England, so hon. Members should visit it in their holidays and spend all their money there. Over the weekend, I was walking around my constituency, talking, meeting and listening to people-as we all do-when I was stopped by a chap who works as a street pastor. He goes out late at night working with others, helping people and being there for young people, old people and middle-aged people in case of trouble. He told me that he once came across a young woman of about 16 or 17-lord knows how she got hold of the alcohol-who was comatose. Fortuitously, the ambulance arrived within 20 minutes or so, but this man, who is an experienced older man and former pastor, said, "Stephen, frankly, if the ambulance had been another 30 minutes, if there had been a hold-up, she probably would have died."

Henry Smith: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. Not so long ago, I went on patrol with my local police in Crawley on a Friday night and into the early hours of Saturday morning. I was astounded to discover that, I would say, nine out of 10 of the incidents that we responded to were alcohol related.

Stephen Lloyd: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I thank him for his intervention. The overall statistics show that well over 50% of violent crimes involve alcohol. It is absolutely shocking. A number of colleagues talked about the cheap price of alcohol. The right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) declared that he did not drink cheap drinks or what-have-you-I am sure that he does not, and neither do I for that matter-but there is one cider in particular called White Lightning. I know of shops in Eastbourne where, sadly, it is used by young and old people specifically to get absolutely blitzed, and I am sure that there are similar shops in every town in the constituency. Given the damage that White Lightning causes, and especially because of its price, it is commendable that the Bill is beginning to look at such issues seriously.
	A key part of this Bill comes back to antisocial behaviour. The more that we can give the power back to the people-back to the local authority-to challenge those establishments where alcohol is freely served and abused, the more that life will be made easier for many constituents around the country. I go back to the fact that it is often the smaller, perhaps less notorious aspects of crime that can cause so much damage. Antisocial behaviour is one of those, and it is clearly linked to alcohol. The changes in licensing will make things more efficient and, crucially, will give power back to the people. Those provisions are highly sensible, and I commend the Bill to the House.

Michael Ellis: I am delighted to follow the speakers who have recently been addressing the House. I completely support and commend the Bill. I intend to refer in the few minutes available to a couple of its clauses, but it strikes me very much that the Bill as a whole tremendously empowers people in our country, drawing power away from the state. As such, it is to be highly commended, and I congratulate the Minister on that.
	The handful of Opposition speakers-and it is a small number-who have spoken on the issue of universal jurisdiction and the safeguard in the Bill have confirmed why it is so necessary to improve the law on universal jurisdiction as it stands. This issue is not just about Israel: the Chinese Trade Minister has apparently been threatened with arrest because of the current provision, as has Henry Kissinger. There have been difficulties in Europe with Donald Rumsfeld's freedom of movement, and I believe that White House staffers have been threatened with arrest in Spain because of the principle of universal jurisdiction. I am given to understand that even the former Prime Minister Tony Blair has had a large number of petitions levied against him in the International Criminal Court, so this issue is not unique to the United Kingdom or Israel. It is an area that has needed reform for some considerable time.
	The principle of amending the law on universal jurisdiction is in no way about stifling meritorious complaints. However, where jurisdiction is very wide, as it currently is in this country, it will tend to act as a magnet for complaints that are rooted in political vendettas, regardless of their merit. Universal jurisdiction has tended to mean that high-level consultations and meetings have been disrupted, and at times even cancelled. London has a long-established and important reputation as an effective venue for warring parties around the world-indeed, it has a cherished ability to act as such, serving as a diplomatic hot spot.

Henry Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Ironically, universal jurisdiction is getting in the way of diplomatic efforts to engender peace and in the way of peace talks and discussions, particularly in this international venue that is London. The Bill's provisions are thus absolutely correct.

Michael Ellis: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. There have been literally dozens of examples in our recent history where London has been a centre for the negotiation and conclusion of important international agreements between warring factions, and we are in danger of losing that ability because universal jurisdiction has been misused, misapplied and inappropriately applied as a means of pursuing political vendettas. All that is required for the proposed changes is the consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions-it is, incidentally, already required in certain other routine prosecutions-which would enable the system to withstand attempts to exploit the law for settling political scores. I very much welcome that provision.
	Other important provisions are designed to deal with the encampment on Parliament square. The Prime Minister has said that he would like to see that encampment done away with; the Bill will achieve that, although it will be some months before Royal Assent is granted. Having looked at the existing laws, I take the view that law is already available on the criminal statute book, which could be applied to remove the encampment in time for the royal wedding in April. Members will be fascinated to know that I have in mind the Vagrancy Act 1824.
	As Members will obviously know, section 4(2) of the 1824 Act says:
	"Every person wandering abroad and lodging in any barn or outhouse, or in any deserted or unoccupied building, or in the open air, or under a tent, or in any cart or wagon, and not giving a good account of himself or herself... commits an offence."
	Members might be interested to know that this Act is not as obsolete as its antiquity would tend to imply. It is, in fact, a piece of legislation that is used regularly around the country. I myself have prosecuted people for this offence in relatively recent times, in my former guise as a member of the Bar.

Claire Perry: I thought my hon. Friend was going to say that he had been moved on under the terms of the Act, so I was grateful that he finished his sentence. I am delighted that he has found a potential wrinkle to help us to clear the encampment outside this building, which I think disgraces the motherhood of democracy. Does he agree that although we all share the commitment to freedom of speech and the right to protest, this is simply an eyesore that we have tolerated for far too long? The provisions on this issue are important and should be welcomed.

Michael Ellis: I very much agree. Of course we all recognise and cherish the right of people to protest in this country; we have an extremely liberal democracy that allows and, indeed, encourages it. It has however, reached a point of utter nonsense in Parliament Square gardens.
	The Vagrancy Act 1824 can be used to remove these people because they are either
	"in the open air, or under a tent",
	and committing an offence under that provision. The maximum penalty for breaching it is a fine at level 1 of the standard scale, which is a maximum of £200. However, Members will be interested to know that if a person is prosecuted a second time for this offence, they can then be classified as "an incorrigible rogue". The provision then allows the magistrates to remit the matter to the Crown court for sentence. Whereas on first prosecution the maximum sentence is a £200 fine, on second conviction for the same offence the maximum penalty would be up to 12 months' imprisonment. That might well act as a disincentive to those encamping themselves on Parliament square, encouraging them to move on. The only requirements for prosecution are that the people concerned have been given an opportunity to take shelter elsewhere and have not availed themselves of that opportunity; that they have persistently ignored reasonably accessible alternatives; and that their remaining in situ would have offensive consequences or those consequences would appear likely to occur. I think that the House could well deal with the encampment by means of a prosecution before the Bill is given Royal Assent.
	I have dealt with two clauses. I have only two minutes in which to cover several hundred more, but let me say a little about the proposal relating to police commissioners. It is a fundamentally democratic proposal, which I strongly support. Only a tiny number of people currently know that police authorities even exist.

Andrew Bridgen: Does my hon. Friend agree that in this country we police with consent-the consent of the people-and that there is no better way of securing the consent of the people than a democratic election?

Michael Ellis: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It has been quite strange to observe Opposition members baulking at the suggestion that police and crime commissioners should be elected. One would have expected them to support the democratic process.

Karl Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Michael Ellis: By all means. I have a minute left.

Karl Turner: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the proposal politicises the police?

Michael Ellis: I do not accept that at all. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the last Prime Minister but one, Tony Blair, summoned chief constables from around the country and put them under pressure to deal with knife crime. That was a form of politicisation of the police, and it is not something that police commissioners will be doing. Democratically electing police commissioners will, in fact, legitimise them.
	I, for one, support all the provisions in the Bill, and commend it as an excellent and honourable measure that will increase the democratic process.

Vernon Coaker: We have had an interesting and wide-ranging debate to which many Members on both sides of the House have contributed. At the heart of the Bill is disagreement about whether the reforms will lead to politicisation. Government Members may assert that they will not, but there is real worry among not just Members of Parliament but many outside organisations.
	The hon. Members for Gosport (Caroline Dinenage), for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard), for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), discussed the measures to deal with alcohol. Many of us welcome those measures. Let me say to the Home Secretary and her Ministers that I consider it important to enforce not only the new laws in the Bill, but the existing laws.
	Some of the problems relating to alcohol, and in particular to binge drinking, are cultural. There is not just one homogeneous problem; there is the problem of binge drinking, the problem of the purchase of alcohol on estates by under-age drinkers and the problem of alcoholism, which usually involves older drinkers. We need to understand that there are three separate problems, each of which requires a separate solution.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East also mentioned the measures relating to drugs, which I welcome. Obviously, we will have to consider their practical implications in Committee, but this is certainly a sensible and realistic attempt to deal with what we all recognise to be a real problem.
	Although we are in favour of universal jurisdiction, I repeat to my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) and for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd) something my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary said: we will look at its implications in Committee.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe) and for Kingston upon Hull East (Karl Turner) talked about the issue of commissioners, which is at the heart of the Bill. We all accept that accountability is important and necessary, but the question is: what is the right way of ensuring that the police are held accountable? The Bill proposes that the right way is through a single individual on a force-wide basis. My two hon. Friends and my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary pointed out some of the difficulties in that, as I will too.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears) pointed out that the Bill's proposal of a single individual accountable at force-wide level does not address the real accountability issues, which, as most Members will know, are at neighbourhood, street and ward level. People come to me about drugs problems in the pub car park or a gang of youths at the end of the street; they do not come to me about the force's counter-terrorism policy, or come to me and say the force does not have the right strategic approach to serious and organised crime. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Salford and Eccles that the accountability gap people often feel and the confidence that is then sometimes under threat are at a neighbourhood and street level, and I do not see how a single force commissioner can deal with that.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vernon Coaker: I will not give way at present, as I want to make a point about an issue the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Stephen Lloyd) raised. He talked about the need to tackle antisocial behaviour, and we all agree with that. People ask why the crime statistics are sometimes not believed. As Bill Bratton said to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, unless antisocial behaviour-some of the minor crimes which are nevertheless real issues-is dealt with, people sometimes do not believe the broader crime statistics. That highlights the importance of having somebody at the local or neighbourhood level who-

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vernon Coaker: Let me finish this point. That highlights the importance of having somebody at the local or neighbourhood level who is accountable for dealing with such matters. That is the really important level of accountability.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vernon Coaker: I am going to take one intervention. As some of the Members on their feet have already been granted interventions, I will give way to the hon. Member for Hendon (Mr Offord).

Matthew Offord: A central tenet of the Local Government Act 2000 was the introduction of greater accountability and transparency in the decision-making process and the introduction of directly elected mayors, so why does the hon. Gentleman not support the same rationale in this Bill?

Vernon Coaker: Because I did not think they were a very good idea then. The hon. Gentleman has to deal with this: the accountability his party seeks to put in place through this Bill is at a force-wide level, and I am saying it is the wrong level of accountability.

Several hon. Members: rose -

Vernon Coaker: I cannot give way as I have to finish in four or five minutes. Those Members wishing to intervene can argue this point in more detail in Committee, as they do not have to be Committee members to do so.
	The Bill makes a number of proposals on issues such as drugs, alcohol and protests around Parliament, but at its core is police reform and the proposal for elected police commissioners and police and crime panels. At the same time as we have massive cuts to policing that will mean thousands fewer police in every single area of the country, the Government are subjecting police to an unwanted organisational upheaval. Of course, not only are police officers under threat but police staff in the back office and police community support officers will go.

Robert Halfon: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Vernon Coaker: I cannot. I would normally, but I have not got time. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman.
	As we have seen from the police grant reports today, every single police force will be under huge financial pressure, yet the Government want to spend more than £100 million on these commissioners, equivalent to the cost of 600 full-time officers. This organisational change will happen in May 2012, just before the Olympics, and in 2012-13, the year of the biggest cuts.
	Who wants this? The Minister must tell us who is demanding these so-called reforms. We have seen in  The Guardian today that the APA is completely opposed to the reforms-the letter is from Conservative, Independent, Labour and Liberal Democrat members. Liberty is opposed to them, so are the LGA and the police. We have a so-called listening Government who are, frankly, telling people that they know best.
	The Minister has failed to answer the questions. If the commissioner is elected based on a particular proposal, who will decide? The elected commissioner or the chief constable? If I am an elected commissioner and I promise that every police officer will be visible and on the street, but the chief constable says, "No, I want some for domestic violence, for cross-border organised crime, for tackling economic fraud and for child protection," who will decide? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East said, the Government have a duty to be clearer about where that dividing line will occur and about what operational independence and operational responsibility mean. We have no clarity about that in the Bill.

Mark Reckless: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Vernon Coaker: I cannot; I have not got time.
	I have dealt with subject of the wrong level of accountability, and it is also unclear how police and crime panels are to work. Are they to hold commissioners to account or to work with them to deliver what they want? They have a power of veto in only two areas-namely the precept, or budget, and the appointment of the chief constables-but they must have a three-quarters majority for that veto to be effective. That is a greater majority than the Government have passed for the Dissolution of Parliament. A three-quarters majority would mean that virtually every person on the police and crime panel would have to agree for that veto to happen.
	In conclusion, the political independence of the police is as important in a democracy as the independence of the courts. Political views and opinions may ebb and flow, but the police remain. That allows every individual, whatever their race, religion or politics, to feel protected. A single person who is politically motivated elected to oversee the police will make it increasingly difficult to ensure that this political independence is maintained. For that reason, above all, the Government must think again.

Nick Herbert: I apologise to the House for the fact that I had briefly to leave the debate. I was attending and addressing a meeting in the House of London members of the Police Superintendents Association, as were Opposition Front Benchers.
	It has clearly largely been a good debate and I welcome the constructive comments that have been made and that have been reported to me. I shall attempt to respond to as many as I can either now or, if appropriate, later. The Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz), mentioned his report and we are paying the closest attention to its recommendations, which we think are very considered. Like the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, he mentioned the importance of operational independence. We all agree about that and we all want to protect it. The Chairman of the Committee suggested that a memorandum of understanding might be the means by which that could be achieved. That is a good idea and the Government have already said that we will sit down with ACPO once the Bill is enacted and agree an extra-statutory protocol-I am sure that we can discuss these issues as the Bill makes progress-that will set out the terms of agreement to ensure that operational independence is protected. There is agreement between us and ACPO-it is important that the Opposition understand this-that we should not seek to define operational independence in the Bill. That is a matter for case law.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) made a number of important points and I shall respond in detail at the appropriate time, but let me deal with two of them now. We will be engaging with the Electoral Commission on its recommendations. He asked whether the strategic policing requirement could cover issues such as business crime. That is important, but the aim of the requirement is to cover issues of national importance on which co-ordination is required, such as counter-terrorism and serious organised crime, to ensure that elected police and crime commissioners and chief constables have regard to those cross-border issues. I am not sure whether that would be appropriate for the issues he raised, but it is worth discussing.

Mark Reckless: On the question of operational independence, one could get the impression from Opposition Members that police forces operate and are directed in a political vacuum. Surely, it is entirely appropriate that police authorities should determine whether Tasers, for example, should be used. None of us would expect police to start using water cannon and that sort of operational tactic without political permission and oversight.

Nick Herbert: I strongly agree and the Home Secretary said exactly the same thing today. Such tactics are a matter for the operational responsibility of the police, but such major decisions have to be agreed with the police authorities that hold them to account locally.
	My hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard) made good speeches supporting our plans to toughen alcohol licensing. I welcome the Opposition's support for those measures, but what a far cry it is from the claims of the right hon. Member for Dulwich and West Norwood (Tessa Jowell) that Labour's 24-hour drinking laws were about
	"enriching the quality of people's lives."
	How naive that was. We have seen the result of those laws-violence and disorder in our city and town centres. So, Labour now repudiates its ill-judged experiment with the so-called café culture, but it is clearly going to oppose the measures on police reform for opposition's sake. That is not the position of the former Minister with responsibility for policing, the right hon. Member for Salford and Eccles (Hazel Blears), however. Based on the notes I have seen, I think she made a thoughtful speech on the importance of accountability, although we may differ on the particular.
	The shadow Home Secretary's arguments against our proposals for police and crime commissioners are deeply unconvincing and he keeps getting things wrong. He attacked our statement on police funding today and got the numbers wrong. Last week, he said that the inspectorate of constabulary's figures were "corrupt and erroneous", but was then forced to retract those words. Today, he told the House that police and crime commissioners would have the power "to direct" policing, but that is simply wrong. Chief constables will retain control and direction of their forces, as it says in clause 2, which he should read. We are determined to protect the operational independence of chief constables. Police and crime commissioners will be able to set the policing plan with the agreement of the chief constable but they will not direct policing and nor should they.
	The shadow Home Secretary said that the commissioners will be elected solely to run policing, but that will not be their sole job. They will be police and crime commissioners with wider powers and devolved budgets from the Home Office to fight crime and engage in crime prevention with the local community. If the right hon. Gentleman has such a good case, why does he need to invent objections to the Bill? He continues to assert that the commissioners will appoint political advisers, but we have repeatedly made it clear that we will not allow that. We do not want to politicise policing and we do not want spin in policing. We will not take any lectures about political advisers and spin from the friend of McBride and Whelan.

Edward Balls: I do not want to get into personal invective or to drag the important issue of policing down to the gutter. I have been told by a number of people who attended the meeting of the Association of Police Authorities at which the Minister spoke that he said that, if he were elected as a police and crime commissioner, the first decision he would take would be to appoint a political adviser. Was everyone else at that meeting mistaken or has he forgotten attending the event and saying those things?

Nick Herbert: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong and our intention is clear-we keep repeating it: we do not want political advisers and we have legislated for that in the Bill.
	The Labour party complains about the cost of the commissioners and that complaint was repeated by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Steve McCabe). We have made it quite clear that commissioners must cost no more than the police authorities they replace. Yes, there will be the cost of holding the elections once every four years-an average £12.5 million a year. That is less than 0.1% of police spend, and the money will not come from force budgets anyway.

Edward Balls: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Herbert: Labour's manifesto at the last election proposed referendums five times over-on AV, on reform of the other place, on mayors, on further powers for the Welsh Assembly and on the euro. Did Labour Members advance arguments against those democratic pledges on the grounds that they would cost money? Of course not. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Mr Burley) pointed out, of course there is a cost to running elections. Police authorities do not have that cost because they are not democratic. That is exactly what we want to fix.

Hazel Blears: Will the Minister give way?

Nick Herbert: For all Labour's objections, one could be forgiven for forgetting that the previous Government twice proposed to democratise police authorities. So what happened? They backed down, twice. That is the difference between the previous Government and the coalition. The Opposition retreated from reform at the first whiff of opposition and we are determined to see it through. [Hon. Members: "Give way!"]
	One thing is clear. Those on the Opposition Front Bench may be opportunistically opposing this reform, but we know what they really think about the need for it.
	"Only direct election, based on geographic constituencies, will deliver the strong connection to the public which is critical."
	Does that sound familiar to the hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker)? It should do. He said it just two years ago.
	Is that too long ago? Let us look at what the right hon. Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) said just two weeks ago. He told the Home Affairs Committee that "the present accountability of police authorities was not optimal." What a masterpiece of understatement. If police authorities are sub-optimal, what proposals does he have for reform? None. He is silent on the issue. Today the right hon. Gentleman admitted that "there is more we can do to deepen accountability at force level." What? He will not say. He is against reform of the governance of policing, but he is for it, just as he is against cuts while admitting that he would cut police budgets by more than £1 million a year. Apparently these can be delivered without losing a single police officer. That is what he said today.

Edward Balls: rose-

Nick Herbert: On point after point, Labour Members get it wrong. They say that the constituencies-[Hon. Members: "Give way!"]

Mr Speaker: Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way.

Nick Herbert: Labour Members say that the constituencies will be too big, yet the largest constituency outside London will have 2.5 million electors, and the capital has more than 5.5 million. Londoners like the clear line of accountability that the Mayor provides. The Opposition run scare stories about extremists being elected. Did it happen in London? No. Fortunately, Ken Livingstone was replaced by Boris Johnson.
	At the heart of objections to the Bill lies a deeply worrying philosophy. It is the view that one cannot trust the people. Heaven forfend that they might elect someone who represents their views. Those are the same disreputable arguments that were mounted against enfranchising the general public and women. The same attitude pervades opposition to the Bill-that one cannot trust the electorate. It is as undemocratic as it is elitist to argue that the public should have no say, and that our public services would be run so much better by people who are unaccountable and who know better than them.
	Policing is a monopoly service and people cannot choose their force. This public service has to answer to someone. Is it to be bureaucratic accountability to Whitehall or local accountability to the people? We believe in trusting people and returning power and responsibility to communities. We think that local people should have a say over how their area is policed. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) said, we think that local people should have power so that they can do something when problem drinking blights their town and city centres. We are determined to rebuild the link between the people and the police forces who serve them. That is why these reforms are right for the people, right for the police and right for the times. I commend the Bill to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made.
	 The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 321.

Question accordingly negatived.
	 Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 62(2 )), That the Bill be now read a  Second time.
	 Question agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

POLICE REFORM AND SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY BILL (PROGRAMME)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill:
	 Committal
	1. The Bill shall be committed to a Public Bill Committee.
	 Proceedings in Public Bill Committee
	2. Proceedings in the Public Bill Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 17 February 2011.
	3. The Public Bill Committee shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it meets.
	 Consideration and Third Reading
	4. Proceedings on Consideration shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on the day on which those proceedings are commenced.
	5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
	6. Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings on Consideration and Third Reading.
	 Other proceedings
	7. Any other proceedings on the Bill (including any proceedings on consideration of Lords Amendments or on any further messages from the Lords) may be programmed. -(Angela Watkinson.)
	 The House divided: Ayes 320, Noes 230.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Police reform and social responsibility bill (Money)

Queen's recommendation signified.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Bill, it is expedient to authorise-
	(1) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of-
	(a) any expenditure incurred under or by virtue of the Act by a Minister of the Crown, and
	(b) any increase attributable to the Act in the sums payable under or by virtue of any other Act out of money so provided, and
	(2) the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of expenditure of the Secretary of State in making payments to returning officers for charges in respect of services rendered, or expenses incurred, by such officers for or in connection with elections of police and crime commissioners.
	 The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 225.

Question accordingly agreed to.

SCHOOLS ADMISSIONS POLICIES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. -(Angela Watkinson.)

Mark Lancaster: Tonight, I shall try to find the balance in schools admissions between the right of schools to set their admissions policy and the right of parents to get their children into a local school. In Milton Keynes, a growing city with many in-year admissions, that is no mean feat. Hopefully we can find a resolution tonight, but it is fair to say that for many, school admissions is a sore subject. It preoccupies parents, has the power to inflate housing prices and has even been the stuff of TV drama.
	In Milton Keynes, schools admissions has gained renewed controversy since changes were made to the allocation process. The previous Government said that those changes would ensure fairness, but combined with other factors, they have had the unintended consequence of leaving scores of children out of education or having to travel miles across the city to get to school. The delays and distances endured by many of my young constituents are simply not fair.
	From September, local authorities were charged with co-ordinating all applications for foundation schools and academies for those applying outside the yearly round. Previously, these in-year applications, usually from people moving into the city, were submitted directly to schools. Now councils must match each child's three preferences with the schools' admissions criteria and capacity, and allocate a place. Nationally, councils have reported concerns to the Office of the Schools Adjudicator about this new role. Pressure group Parents Outloud even championed the previous system, and admissions staff at schools have bemoaned the new layer of bureaucracy. Locally, the impact of the change has been compounded by the fact that all our 12 state secondary schools are foundation schools, with one voluntary aided and one academy. Milton Keynes council only has a team of five to deal with its new responsibility.
	Since September, I have been inundated with complaints from parents about delays in the process, as well as about what has been offered. Children are now sitting at home for weeks while the council finds them a place, and then further weeks for the school to induct them. When places are offered, many of them are on the other side of the city.

Iain Stewart: My hon. Friend is raising an important topic. Is he aware that on my side of Milton Keynes I have received a similar number of complaints, and that some of the complaints about admissions relate to primary schools as well as secondary schools?

Mark Lancaster: I am aware of the problem, because it is the same in Milton Keynes North. However, I am also aware of my hon. Friend's sterling efforts in getting many of his constituents into school. I congratulate him on that.
	This is a particularly timely debate. The Government are currently reviewing the school admissions framework and the school admissions code, with a view to making it simpler and fairer. A White Paper on "The Importance of Teaching" has just been published, putting the onus of fair access to schools on local authorities. Fairness is the driving force of the White Paper. I want therefore to outline the situation in Milton Keynes and consider how we can make admissions fairer for schools, authorities, parents and, most importantly, pupils.
	As I have said, many of the complaints I have received relate to the delays in council allocation and school induction. This year, Milton Keynes council received 327 secondary school in-year applications. This influx is to be expected in our city, which is an area of rapid growth. The Department for Education-or the Department for Children, Schools and Families, as it was then-recommended that places be allocated within five school days. Milton Keynes council aims for a turnaround of 15 days. Owing to this year's influx, however, parents have seen a reported six-week wait for their child's three preferences to be processed. Then, once a place is allocated and accepted, there is a further delay as the school conducts its induction arrangements.

Jason McCartney: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In September and October, I was inundated with problems from parents, particularly in the Holme Valley, Honley and Brockholes, with over-subscribed schools. Does my hon. Friend agree that consistency in admissions policy would be particularly helpful, especially when it comes to siblings being able to go to the same school?

Mark Lancaster: That is absolutely right. My hon. Friend makes a powerful point that I will come on to.
	We can all agree that the last thing we want is children out of school. In fact, parents could be prosecuted for keeping their children at home for such lengths of time. However, according to a  Mail on Sunday investigation in September, bureaucracy was barring up to 15,000 primary and secondary pupils from the classroom nationally. Each school calculates its own published admissions number-known as a PAN-every year. This determines the number of pupils that can be admitted to each year group. However, such is our shortage of places that 120 of this year's 327 secondary school applicants did not get any of their three choices.
	There is one school bearing the brunt of the city's scarcity of school places. The Radcliffe school in Wolverton does not fill its PAN, so when the council cannot give in-year applicants any of their three preferences, it allocates them to the Radcliffe, seemingly regardless of where the children live in our ever expanding city. Head teacher John O'Donnell is currently dealing with an influx of 140 allocations. A staggering 119 are from children who are out of area, many of whom will have to be bussed or potentially taxied in from outside. Understandably for students who are out of catchment, Radcliffe was not one of their three preferences. The council is fulfilling its duty-every applicant is being offered a school place-but this is turning the Radcliffe into a de facto community school. Whereas 5% of its intake came from outside the catchment area previously, that has suddenly increased to 10%, and is set to rise further.
	That volume of allocations has taken its toll. Mr O'Donnell is devoting two days a week to dealing with the backlog. His induction arrangements involve meeting the pupils and families to determine their requirements, be they special educational needs, academic courses or even language-after all, 37 mother tongues are spoken at the school. The induction process has been criticised, but it is understandable that Mr O'Donnell wants to get his pupils off to the best start. His school finally broke out of special measures in October 2009, after a well deserved record round of GCSE results, but do we want him to put children straight into lessons that are not appropriate just to get them into school, or do we want him to continue raising standards? Such is the backlog that pupils are now being allocated places at the Radcliffe, where they will not be able to start for months. The result is scores of children sitting at home-not studying, just waiting.
	Why has the Radcliffe seen such an influx? It can be partly explained by the creation of the Milton Keynes academy-a fantastic new facility, and the city's first-which opened in September 2009. As I told the Secretary of State after he delivered his White Paper on 24 November, the academy's PAN is lower than that of its predecessor, the Sir Frank Markham community school. That has displaced people from the academy's catchment area, who are instead being given places at the Radcliffe. For example, Mr O'Donnell is for the first time seeing applicants from the Netherfield estate, which is 1 mile from the academy, but nearly 7 miles from the Radcliffe. In fact, many of the Radcliffe's new intake of 119 are from the academy's catchment area.
	It is worth taking a moment to consider why it is so important for children to go to a school close to home. Once they are 18, many seem to pick a university that gets them as far away as possible-or a continent that takes them even further afield, on their gap year-but most school kids just want to walk to school with their mates. The national Walk to School campaign highlights why travelling on foot is good for morale and health, taking congestion off our roads and promoting a more cohesive society.

James Wharton: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this excellent debate and campaigning so vigorously on behalf of school pupils across Milton Keynes. I am sure that he will be aware that there is a problem right across the country. In Ingleby Barwick in my constituency, a local group called BO2SS-Barwick's Own 2nd Secondary School-has come together to put forward a free school application specifically in order to allow local pupils to attend a school within walking distance in their community. It is important to put on record the fact that although the problem is significant in Milton Keynes, it needs to be addressed across the nation as a whole.

Mark Lancaster: I agree with my hon. Friend. Indeed, I would argue that a good basis for the big society is schooling children in their own communities.
	With Mr O'Donnell's out-of-catchment intake, he is seeing a massive decrease in those attending after-school activities. Engagement has already taken a hit because many pupils have to change buses in central Milton Keynes. There, they are drawn to shops and attractions, rather than continuing with their journeys, which sometimes involve catching two or three buses. We have to think about what sort of society we want to create. Do we want our children to become juvenile commuters, reading bus timetables rather than textbooks?
	The problem is not confined to the two aforementioned schools. For example, the Mumford family moved to a house in Newport Pagnell that overlooks a secondary school, Ousedale. Two of their daughters were offered places at the school, but not in a classroom yards from their home-rather, at the campus in the next town, Olney, which is more than 8 miles away and not on a bus route. They were alternatively offered places at the Radcliffe school, 6.5 miles away, but told that they would not be able to start until November. After weeks out of education, they face a daily commute when there is already a school on their doorstep. Likewise, a mother and her son moved to Olney, very near the town's Ousedale campus. The son was instead offered a place at the Radcliffe school, 11 miles away. As there is no bus service that would get him to school, he was offered a council-funded taxi to take him there and back every day. Fortunately, after an intervention from my caseworker and persistence from his mother, his appeal was successful and he has happily started at his local school, without having to use a taxi, at a cost to the council of £2,875 a year.
	We are talking about fairness, but what is happening is unfair on children whose parents are not able, for whatever reason, to fight their case and push for appeals. It is unfair on the children whose parents cannot provide them with transport if they have to travel several miles to school or support them if they are stuck out of education for a period of time. Indeed, schools can admit above their PAN in exceptional circumstances if children fall into the categories stipulated by the fair access protocol. This protocol also applies to those who have been out of school for more than one term or those whose parents have been unable to find them a place after moving to the area. However, Milton Keynes council resorted to this protocol on only four occasions last year and not at all this year.
	After my prolonged campaign for "I before E"-infrastructure before expansion-and the coalition Government's commitment to it, I am confident that our rate of school building will keep up with our population growth. After all, Milton Keynes is the fifth fastest-growing city in the UK, but I am concerned that, as new schools appear, they will fill up with pupils from across the city before nearby houses are built. Head teachers have wanted to hold places, but the incentive is to fill places to secure maximum funding.

Martin Horwood: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the problem is not limited to growing towns? We have a strikingly parallel situation in Cheltenham, where two neighbouring schools were both oversubscribed, which left an admissions gap between them. Again, pupils were referred a long distance away. That was resolved in the end by the good will of the governors of both schools, but with the assistance of the local authority. Does he share my slight concern that the more independence we give schools over admissions, the less incentive they will have to co-ordinate and resolve these problems?

Mark Lancaster: The hon. Member comes to the nub of the problem-how we square that circle between the rights of schools to set their own admissions and the rights of families to get their children into their local school. In Milton Keynes, the consequence is that new families moving in cannot get a place at their local school.
	Network Rail's new headquarters is set to bring 2,000 new staff to the city. Yes, there will be school places for the children who move here, but will these be anywhere near their houses and how long will they have to wait to start? This situation also spells trouble as we see the creation of more academies. In Milton Keynes, two schools have applied for academy status, which I wholeheartedly support. I am delighted about it, but will they, as in the previous case, have reduced PANs and will we see yet more displacement within the city?
	Meanwhile, the Secretary of State has mooted the idea of allowing schools to prioritise children from disadvantaged backgrounds in the oversubscription criteria. While this is laudable in principle, it has been suggested that allocation will favour a child's means over their proximity to a school. Will we end up with a city where students are crossing each other's paths as they travel to school? Indeed, this situation has posed more questions than answers. Of course there is no dispute that fairness should underpin whatever we do, but there remain two problems with the current set up: delays and distance.
	Various recommendations have been made. One that head teachers say would make a big difference is allowing schools in high-growth areas to be able to hold places for people moving in at a later date. This could be made possible by "ghost funding" those places, which is the approach taken by armed forces schools. Again, I am all for infrastructure before expansion, but it has to be done in a strategic way, because at the moment people are moving next to these new schools, but are not able to get a place there.
	The school admission code needs to recognise the importance of schools admitting children from the catchment area. Councils do not seem to have a problem sending children 10 miles away; parents and head teachers do. If we want to improve attainment and children's quality of life, we must recognise that proximity of schooling is very important. A school's duty should be to serve its local area. John Prescott famously warned of the dangers of setting up good schools, because
	"everyone wants to go there".
	Well, our schools in Milton Keynes are all good. The only danger is that many children will continue to wait too long and travel too far before they actually get to go there.

Nick Gibb: I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North (Mark Lancaster) on securing this debate. I understand the importance he attaches to education, and it was he who introduced me to Peter Barnes, an inspiring head teacher of the Oakgrove school in his constituency.
	My hon. Friend is right to say that admissions policy is a sore subject. I would go a step further, and say that for many parents admissions are a cause of huge stress as they fight to secure a place in a good school when the education system provides insufficient good places. We have some of the best schools in the world, but we also have too many that are still struggling. According to Ofsted's annual report, published on 23 November, 39% of secondary schools and 36% of primary schools are judged to be inadequate or merely satisfactory. If the admissions system is to be fair, all parents must have the opportunity to choose a good school, not just a satisfactory school. It is not good enough that nearly four in 10 secondary schools and over a third of primary schools do not yet reach that level.
	Although 83% of parents secured their first-preference school in this year's admissions round-in Milton Keynes the figure was 88%-that still means that, nationally, nearly one in five parents failed to achieve their first choice of school. It is worse in cities, with one in three missing out on their first choice in London and Birmingham. In some local authority areas, only 50% of parents manage to get their children into their first-preference schools. In 2008-09, more than 88,000 appeals were made by parents who were unhappy with the schools that had been allocated to them, and in 22% of cases the appeals were allowed.
	That is the scale of the problem that the Government are charged with tackling. They must establish how to increase the number of good school places, and how to reduce the stress and unhappiness that arise every year during the admissions process. That problem is compounded by the fact that, according to the latest report by the Programme for International Student Assessment, this country's educational ranking has fallen from seventh to 25th in reading, from eighth to 28th in science, and from fourth to 16th in maths.
	We need to learn from the best-performing countries, which have been successful in closing the attainment gap between those from wealthier and poorer backgrounds while raising standards for all students. Many have drawn up comprehensive plans for school improvement that involve improving teacher quality, granting greater autonomy to the front line, modernising curriculums, making schools more accountable to their communities, harnessing detailed performance data, and encouraging professional collaboration.
	Only through such whole-system reform can education be transformed to make our nation one of the world's top performers, and that is what our White Paper "The Importance of Teaching"-which was mentioned by my hon. Friend-will allow us to do. It will provide greater autonomy for schools, an enhanced teaching profession with renewed professional status, a war on the bureaucratic burdens and red tape that sap motivation and energy, a real focus on raising standards in reading and arithmetic in primary schools, and a revised and slimmed-down national curriculum focused on core knowledge.
	We also want to ease the burden on local authorities. Rather than their having to engage in activities such as setting up admissions forums or providing the schools adjudicator with an annual report because central Government says that they must, we want them to concentrate on making the admissions process as fair and straightforward as possible. As my hon. Friend intimated, we intend to simplify the admissions code, while still ensuring fair access to schools for all children.
	As my hon. Friend said, local authorities have a critical role to play. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State describes them as our indispensable partners, and nowhere is that truer than in the co-ordination of fair admissions. Decisions about the allocation of school places can only be made locally. When schools are over-subscribed, the current system allows admission authorities to set their own criteria to decide place allocations, provided that they comply with the school admissions code and admissions legislation.
	The use of catchment areas is a popular method, but there are others, including prioritisation based on travel distance, siblings-that too was mentioned by my hon. Friend-and feeder primary schools. The admissions code states explicitly that when catchment areas are used, they must always reflect the community served by the school and must never disadvantage particular social groups by, for example, excluding certain housing estates or addresses.
	Those arrangements-as well as the timetable governing when parents apply for their children to start primary school or transfer to secondary school-have been in place for a number of years, but, as my hon. Friend pointed out, local authorities have been required to co-ordinate all in-year applications and offers only from this September as a result of changes made by the previous Government. On the one hand, this means that parents have to complete only a single application form to the local authority where they live, instead of having to go through the often disheartening process of contacting schools direct. It also allows local authorities to help more vulnerable families. On the other hand, it also makes for the kind of slow and bureaucratic process my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North described and delays the allocation of places. In recent months, the Department has had a steady flow of correspondence from local authorities and schools echoing those same concerns-which were also echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton South (James Wharton)-and arguing that schools should be able to offer or refuse a place directly. Admissions processes are an imprecise science, but having heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes North and having received representations from admissions authorities and members of the public, I am convinced that we have to look again at this issue. It will be considered as part of the review and the simplification of the admissions code that we are currently undertaking.
	My hon. Friend also raised the important issue of travel to and from school. In common, I am sure, with all Members of this House, we want as many children as possible to be able to walk or cycle to school wherever they can. It is healthier and reduces traffic congestion. I know from the Milton Keynes "Walk'n'Roll" scheme, launched in October as part of walk to school month, and the "cycle train" interventions, that the authority is committed to working with schools to achieve precisely that.
	It is far from ideal for children to have to travel long distances. Parents want their local school to be a good school that they are happy for their child to attend, which goes back to my original point that we have to do more to create more good school places and to raise standards in underperforming schools. The statutory walking distance is currently 2 miles for pupils below the age of eight and 3 miles for those aged eight and over. Where a pupil is attending the nearest suitable school and it is further than the walking distances, free home to school transport has to be provided by the local authority. I am pleased to be able to say that today's local government funding settlement announcement included the proposal to conduct a root-and-branch review of home to school transport policy in the new year. The current arrangements have remained largely unchanged since the Education Act 1944 and the Government believe they are no longer appropriate for today's modern education system. In the meantime, I know that there are specific issues in Milton Keynes and that a number of pupils face long and difficult journeys, and I have listened carefully to the points made so effectively by my hon. Friend.
	In summary, we have to improve our education system and we have to improve our admissions system. Fair and inclusive admissions are a vital component of a world-class education system, and I will ensure that our review of admissions addresses all of the points my hon. Friend raised today.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.